JUDGMENT - Deshmukh B.N., J.:—These two revision applications are filed to challenge the order of remand passed by the learned District Judge in a proceeding initiated for eviction under the Hyderabad Houses (Rent, Eviction and Lease) Control Act, 1954 (hereinafter, referred to as “the Act”). 2. Mrs. Pisolkar, for the petitioners, contended that in view of the provisions of section 25(3) of the Act, the learned District Judge has no power to remand the matter back to decide afresh on merits. According to her, once the appeal is filed before the District Court, the Appellate Authority has to decide the appeal finally. In case it finds that certain further inquiry is required, it may do so on its own, or, direct the Rent Controller to hold further inquiry in the matter; but, still the appeal continues with the Appellate Authority. 3. Mrs. Pisolkar has relied upon the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in (Mahboob Bi v. Alvala Lachmiah)1, A.I.R. 1964 A.P. 314, which seems to support her contention. 4. To appreciate the argument advanced, it is worthwhile to consider the provisions of section 25 of the Act. Sub-section (1) of the said section provides that an appeal shall lie to the District Judge from the order made by the Controller. Sub-section (2) provides for grant of stay or other interim orders, etc. Sub-section (3), with which we are mainly concerned, provides as follows :— “The Appellate Authority shall send for the records of the case from the Controller and after giving the parties an opportunity of being heard, and if necessary after making such further inquiry as it thinks fit either personally or through the Controller, shall decide the appeal.” 5. In view of the peculiar wording of sub-section (3) of section 25, the argument is advanced that the Appellate Authority has no power to remand the matter back to decide on merits afresh. The Appellate Authority has to decide the matter itself. The only scope open is to hold further inquiry on its own, or, direct the Controller to hold further inquiry in the matter in respect of recording of evidence, etc.; but, it has no power to remand the matter back to decide on merits afresh. 6. The Appellate Authority has to decide the matter itself. The only scope open is to hold further inquiry on its own, or, direct the Controller to hold further inquiry in the matter in respect of recording of evidence, etc.; but, it has no power to remand the matter back to decide on merits afresh. 6. To consider the power of the Appellate Authority with respect to the remanding of the matter for decision afresh, the scheme provided for under the Act is required to be taken into consideration. 7. The provisions of sub-section (3) of section 25 cannot be read in isolation. The procedure for enquiries is provided for in section 24 of the Act, which is as follows :— “For making enquiries under this Act, the Controller shall follow as nearly as possible, the procedure laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, for the regular trial of suits, the substance only of the evidence and findings being recorded as in unappealable cases and shall record in brief the reasons for his findings.” Even in the matter of summoning of witnesses, the procedure which is required to be followed under the Act is the same, or, as nearly as possible, as that of the procedure laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure. To appreciate the power of the Appellate Authority, therefore, the provisions of Order 41, Rules 23 and 23-A, Civil Procedure Code, will have to be borne in mind, whereby the Appellate Court is vested with the power to remand a matter. In view of this, and more particularly so as the appeal is the continuation of the proceedings, I am of the opinion that the Appellate Authority, while exercising powers under section 25 of the Act, has a power to remand the matter back to the Controller to decide afresh on merits. I, therefore, with great respect, differ from the view taken by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case cited supra. 8. In the result, I hold that the order of remand is proper and is in accordance with the provisions of section 25(3) of the Act, read with Order 41, Rules 23, 23-A, Civil Procedure Code and there is no substance in these revision applications. Rule stands discharged. No order as to costs. Rule discharged. -----