JUDGMENT - A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.:---Rule made returnable forthwith and heard by consent. 2.By this writ petition the order passed by the Additional Collector dated 29th June, 1998 in Appeal No. 119/A-71(1) 93-94, is subject matter of challenge. Briefly stated respondent No. 1 is landlord in respect of the suit property. Respondent No. 1 sent notice to the petitioner asking to increase the rent from Rs. 2400 p.m. to Rs. 14,000/- p.m. The said request is not accepted by the petitioner which compelled the respondent No. 1 to file the application before the Rent Controller for fixation of fair rent. The parties, besides filing their pleadings, adduced evidence in support of their stand. The Rent Controller by the order dated 31st January, 1994 was pleased to allow the application and that the fair rent of the suit premises was fixed at Rs. 6/- per sq.ft. under Clause 5 of the C.P. and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949 (for short "the Rent Control Order"), with effect from December, 1989. The Rent Controller further ordered that the rent fixed above will be exclusive of the corporation taxes which were to be borne by the petitioner and the said order was to be made applicable from the date of filing of the application before the Rent Controller. Against the said decision the petitioner took up the matter in appeal before the Additional Collector. The Additional Collector by the impugned order dated 29th June, 1998 was pleased to dismiss the appeal. 3.The grievance made in the present petition is that although the petitioner had led evidence, both the Courts below have not discussed the evidence, other than the one in the case of State Bank of India, while considering the claim regarding fixation of fair rent. It is, therefore, submitted that the Courts below have committed an error in deciding the matter solely on the basis of the decision in some other case between some other parties and which is not related to the suit property. Moreover, according to the learned Counsel for the petitioner no attempt has been made by the Courts below to find out whether the judgment in the said case was a comparable instance. Moreover, according to the learned Counsel for the petitioner no attempt has been made by the Courts below to find out whether the judgment in the said case was a comparable instance. 4.On the other hand the learned Counsel for respondent No. 1 has strongly opposed the submission by placing reliance on the records and proceedings which have been received by this Court to contend that there is no infirmity in the conclusion reached by the Courts below in fixing the fair rent at the rate of Rs. 6/- per sq.ft. of the suit premises. Before considering the rival submissions, it would be appropriate to reproduce the relevant portion of the judgment which is subject matter of challenge in these proceedings. The decision of the Rent Controller dated 31-1-1994 which finds it's place in paras 3 to 5, reads thus : "On behalf of the non applicant it is stated that rent of the premises as occupied by Narayan Kirana Stores, having an area of 400 sq.ft. is Rs. 400 . Similarly, it is stated to be the position in respect of Balaji Scooter, National Hardware etc. ; Hence, it is denied by the non applicant that the applicant is entitled to get rent at the rate of Rs. 6 per sq.ft. per month excluding corporation taxes. The non applicant has not corroborated the deposition of its witnesses by rent receipts etc.; 4) I have gone through the written notes of arguments filed by the parties and considered the evidence that has been led by the parties. On the basis of the valuable piece of evidence in respect of the first floor premises of Shri Adamali s/o Hussain Firdoshi, let out to State Bank of India, fair rent where it is fixed at Rs. 7/- per month exclusive if corporation taxes, it is not understood as to why the request of the applicant should not be accepted. There is no evidence negativing the claim of the applicant. In such circumstances, I have no choice but to hold that the applicant is entitled to get fair rent of the suit premises fixed at Rs. 6/- per sq.ft. exclusive of corporation taxes to be effective from the date of application, i.e. from December, 1989, for the sake of convenience. 5) I, therefore, order that fair rent of the suit premises is fixed at Rs. 6/- per sq.ft. 6/- per sq.ft. exclusive of corporation taxes to be effective from the date of application, i.e. from December, 1989, for the sake of convenience. 5) I, therefore, order that fair rent of the suit premises is fixed at Rs. 6/- per sq.ft. for the suit premises under Clause 5 of the C.P. and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949. The fair rent so fixed will be effective from December, 1989. It is further ordered that the amount of rent fixed as above will be exclusive of Corporation taxes which are to be borne by the non applicant. This order shall be made applicable from the date of filing of this application." The only discussion of the Appellate Court while dismissing the appeal can be found in paragraph 14 of the judgment which is reproduced thus : "I have gone through the notes of arguments given by both the sides. I have gone through the notes of arguments, the order of the Rent Controller and the record of the Rent Controller. It is observed that the respondent landlord has supplied a copy of the judgment of the Rent Controller's case of Rent fixation decided in 1990 in a case between Firdos and State Bank of India, Ramdaspeth that to me is a sufficient evidence of the Rent Roll prevailing on Wardha Road more so as that has not been challenged by the State Bank of India and that rent is being paid till this date. I, therefore, do not think it necessary to interfere in the orders passed by the Rent Controller in the instant case. I am fully satisfied that the Rent Controller has taken judicious view. That has been upheld in so many cases since 1990 of Rent Fixation on Wardha Road. As such the appellant Gestener (India) Ltd; Company has no case in the instant matter of fixation of fair rent. With this finding I reject the appeal and maintain the orders of the Rent Controller without ordering costs on either side". 5.From perusal of the aforesaid discussion recorded by the two courts below it is not possible to take a view that they have discussed each and every evidence on record adduced by the rival parties. With this finding I reject the appeal and maintain the orders of the Rent Controller without ordering costs on either side". 5.From perusal of the aforesaid discussion recorded by the two courts below it is not possible to take a view that they have discussed each and every evidence on record adduced by the rival parties. However, what appears is that the courts below were unduly influenced by the decision which has been relied upon by respondent No. l in the State Bank of India's case without making further enquiry as to whether the said decision is comparable to the suit premises particularly when the oral as well as documentary evidence was led in by both the parties. Instead of undertaking the said exercise in writ jurisdiction it would be appropriate that the matter is remanded to the Appellate Court to reconsider the appeal and record clear finding as to whether the decision in the State Bank of India's case can be said to be comparable and made applicable to the suit premises. Besides the said decision if there is any other evidence on record which has been led in either by respondent No. 1 or by the petitioner herein with regard to issue of fixation of fair rent the same may also be considered and discussed while reaching at the final conclusion in fixing the fair rent for the suit premises. 6.At this stage the learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the parties be permitted to adduce fresh evidence. However, it is not possible to accept the said request, inasmuch as, whatever evidence was available at the relevant time the same has already been placed on record by the rival parties. No remand is, therefore, necessary on the ground that further evidence is required, but, the limited purpose for which the matter is remanded to the Appellate Court is to record clear finding on the aforesaid issue so that this Court will have an advantage of the decision of the Appellate Court, instead of entire evidence being scrutinised by this Court in writ jurisdiction. The Additional Collector, Nagpur, is directed to decide the appeal within a period of three months on the basis of the evidence already on record. Both the parties to appear before the Additional Collector on 13th September, 2000. In the circumstances, writ is allowed. Rule made absolute. The Additional Collector, Nagpur, is directed to decide the appeal within a period of three months on the basis of the evidence already on record. Both the parties to appear before the Additional Collector on 13th September, 2000. In the circumstances, writ is allowed. Rule made absolute. The order passed by the Appellate Court is set aside for re-consideration as aforesaid. No order as to costs. Hamdas allowed. Record and proceedings be returned forthwith. Writ petition allowed. -----