JUDGMENT M.Y. EQBAL, J. 1. This civil revision application, at the instance of the defendant is directed against the judgment and decree dated 20.1.1997 passed by 7th Additional District Judge, Munger in Eviction Appeal No. 9 of 1993 whereby and whereunder he reversed the judgment and decree dated 6.3.1993 passed by Munsif, Sheikhpura in Eviction Suit No. 1 of 1986. 2. The plaintiff opposite party filed title eviction suit no. 1 of 1986 in the court of Munsif, Sheikhpura for eviction of the defendant petitioner on the ground of personal necessity. The suit was proceeded under the procedure provided under Section 14 of the Bihar Buildings Lease, Rent and Eviction Control Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The case of the plaintiff petitioner inter alia is that the disputed plot bearing khesra no. 2888 having area of 10¼ decimals which is part of 31¾ decimals of land belonged to three brothers namely Sri Prasad, Rameshwar Prasad and Umakant Lohani. In the year 1964 by virtue of registered deed of partition dated 8.7.1964 the plot in question was partitioned and one of the brother namely Sri Prasad was allotted 1/3rd share while Umakant Lohani and Rameshwar Prasad were jointly allotted 2/3rd share of the suit land. The plaintiff's further case is that after sometime Umakant Lohani and Rameshwar Prasad partitioned their property whereby Umakant was allotted his share towards the east and south of Rameshwar Prasad. The plaintiff purchased a portion of the building standing on the said plot from Rameshwar Prasad by registered sale deed dated 10.1.1985. The plaintiff's further case is that the defendant was in occupation of the said plot as a tenant under Rameshwar Prasad. The plaintiff alleged that he purchased the suit plot for his own personal necessity and he requires the premises for doing cloth business. 3. The case of the defendant petitioner was that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant by and between him and the plaintiff or his vendor Rameshwar Prasad. According to the defendant he purchased the suit property which is a part of the plot in question from Umakant Lohani and came in possession of the same. Since the said purchase he has been enjoying the property as owner and purchaser. The trial court neither framed any issue nor recorded his finding on the issues involved in the suit. According to the defendant he purchased the suit property which is a part of the plot in question from Umakant Lohani and came in possession of the same. Since the said purchase he has been enjoying the property as owner and purchaser. The trial court neither framed any issue nor recorded his finding on the issues involved in the suit. However, after considering the case of the parties and the evidence adduced by them came to the conclusion that both parties are claiming title over the suit property and the question involved in the suit cannot be decided under section 14 of the Act. 4. Being aggrieved by the said order the plaintiff opposite party preferred eviction appeal no. 9 of 1993 which has been allowed by the Additional District Judge, Munger in terms of impugned judgment dated 20.1.1997. Hence this civil revision application by the defendant petitioner. 5. I have heard learned counsels appearing for the parties and have gone through the judgment passed by the trial court as also the appellate court. From perusal of the judgment passed in appeal it appears that the appellate court also neither framed any issue nor recorded independent finding on the issues involved in the suit. Although the appellate court discussed the evidence adduced by the parties on the question of title and relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties but no finding has been recorded as to whether relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties exists and whether the defendant petitioner has been continuing in occupation of the suit property as tenant. The appellate court also not recorded independent finding on the issue as to whether the plaintiff requires the suit premises reasonably and in good faith. The appellate court also not recorded any finding on the question of partial eviction. While reversing the judgment and decree of the trial court the appellate court did not assign any cogent reason and has committed the same mistake which was committed by the trial court. The appellate court while reversing the finding recorded by the trial court was duty bound to record his independent finding and discussed the evidence after framing issues. Because of these defects in the appellate court judgment the same cannot be sustained in law. 6. The appellate court while reversing the finding recorded by the trial court was duty bound to record his independent finding and discussed the evidence after framing issues. Because of these defects in the appellate court judgment the same cannot be sustained in law. 6. For the reasons aforesaid, this civil revision application is allowed and the impugned judgment and decree passed by the 7th Additional District Judge, Munger passed in Eviction Appeal No. 9 of 1993 is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the appellate court to pass afresh judgment after hearing both the parties keeping in mind the observation and directions made in this order. Let it be recorded that I have not gone into the merit of the case of the respective parties and the appellate court shall not be prejudiced by any of the observation made in this order. Since the suit is of the year 1986 it is expected that the appellate court shall, on receipt of the records, immediately proceed with the appeal and dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Let the records of the court below be sent immediately.