JUDGMENT 1. By means of this writ petition moved under Article 226 of Constitution of India, the petitioner has sought a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 10-07-1998 passed by the Respondent No.1 in Rent Control Appeal No.2 of 1994 whereby the order passed by the Prescribed Authority has been set-a-side and the case has been remanded to it for the fresh decision. 2. Brief facts of the case as narrated in the writ petition are that the respondent petitioners/land lords Initiated proceedings under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act 13 of 1972 for release of their premises No. 39/80 (New No.14/291), Line No.13, Azadnagar, Haldwani, Distt. Nainital, against Respondent No.2 to 6 who are tenants in the said premises. It is stated in the writ petition that the accommodation in question consists of one room of the size of 14' x 17', Verandah 12' x 8', Sehan 18' x 10' apart from the Kitchen and toilets. The rate of rent is Rs. 30/- plus taxes. The petitioners are living in the one room accommodation at the first floor and one room accommodation in the ground floor which are in dilapidated condition, the said accommodation is insufficient for the family members of the petitioners who are 14 in number. It is alleged that Respondent No.2 and Respondent No.5 have purchased a separate house through registered sale deed dated 29-03-1989 in which respondents can get comfortably accommodated. The Advocate Commissioner who visited spot under the orders of Prescribed Authority, has also reported about need of accommodation in question to the petitioners as the present accommodation with them is too Insufficient for the petitioners. Learned Prescribed Authority after detailed discussions found that need of the petitioners/ land lord is genuine, and comparative hardship is also more in their favour and accordingly it allowed the release application. The Respondent/Tenants preferred appeal before District Judge, Nainital which was registered as Rent Control Appeal No.2/1994 and disposed of by Respondent No.1 setting a-side the order of Prescribed Authority and remanding the case back to the said authority for the fresh decision. Aggrieved by said order present writ petition has been filed before this Court on the ground that the learned Lower Appellate Court has erred in law in allowing in the aforesaid Rent Control Appeal. 3. Aggrieved by said order present writ petition has been filed before this Court on the ground that the learned Lower Appellate Court has erred in law in allowing in the aforesaid Rent Control Appeal. 3. On behalf of Respondents, Counter affidavit has been filed in which it has been stated that the release application of the petitioner was wrongly allowed by the Prescribed Authority. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that the findings recorded by the said authority were against record. However as to size of accommodation, rate of rent etc., the facts are not disputed but it is alleged that the petitioner has sufficient accommodation with them and their application for release of premises In question is malafide. It is further stated by the respondents that the house purchased by the Respondent No.2 does not provide sufficient accommodation to accommodate the respondents No.2 to 6 nor except those purchased the house, have share in newly purchased accommodation. Defending, the impugned order passed by the respondent No.1, it is stated that the petitioner failed to prove their bonafide need. 4. The writ petition is initially filed before Allahabad High Court in the year 1998 and it was transferred to this Court under Section 35 of U.P. Reorganization Act, 2000. 5. I heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. There is no dispute between the parties as to size of accommodation occupied by them and a number of their family members, however the dispute relates to the question as to bonafide need of the landlord and regarding comparative hardship of the parties. Learned Appellate Authority (Respondent No.1) while passing an impugned order, whereby the order passed by the prescribed Authority has been set a-side and case Is remanded for a fresh decision, has observed that the Prescribed Authority has not given finding as to the bonafide need of the landlord. On perusal of order dated 27-1-1994 passed by the Prescribed Authority, this court got categorical finding after lengthy discussions, that the landlords have been successful in establishing its bonafide need. This finding is clearly mentioned in the last para of the Judgment of the Prescribed Authority before the operative portion of the order starts. As such it appears that Respondent No.1 did not go through the judgment passed by the Prescribed Authority before setting it a-side. This finding is clearly mentioned in the last para of the Judgment of the Prescribed Authority before the operative portion of the order starts. As such it appears that Respondent No.1 did not go through the judgment passed by the Prescribed Authority before setting it a-side. As to the acquisition of the house by one of the tenants it is not disputed between the parties but the Appellate Court (respondent No.1) has mentioned that the Prescribed Authority has failed to give specific finding on the allegations of the respondents that some 'members of petitioner's family are living in Almora but Respondent No.1 while making such observation has forgotten that it has itself in middle of the judgment, while discussing, mentioned that the Prescribed Authority has found the fact that the children of Respondent No.2 are living in Almora, to be false. On perusal of the record this court is satisfied that there is no illegality in the order passed by the Prescribed Authority and same has been set a-side by the Learned Lower Appellate Court (respondent No.1) for the reasons against the record. 7. Sri Bindesh Kumar Gupta, Learned Counsel on behalf of the respondent tenants drew this court's attention to the Principle of law laid down in Radha Devi Vs. District Judge, Mirzapur 1983(2) Allahabad Rent Cases page 46 and argued that even if the tenant has acquired a building bonafide need has to be proved by the landlord. In my opinion, the said case law does not help the respondent for in the present case, in view of the number of family members (numbering 14) who are living in the two rooms, it can not be said that their need Is not bonafide. 8. On behalf of respondent/tenants, it is also argued that since the matter is remanded by the Appellate Court as such there is no injustice to the petitioner as the matter stands pending before the Prescribed Authority for a fresh decision. However, I am unable to' agree with said submission for the reason that by remanding the case' unnecessarily and putting the parties back to the Initial point of litigation does cause Injustice if the order or remand is not, passed for sufficient reasons. However, I am unable to' agree with said submission for the reason that by remanding the case' unnecessarily and putting the parties back to the Initial point of litigation does cause Injustice if the order or remand is not, passed for sufficient reasons. As discussed above, the matter was remanded by the Respondent No.1 to the Prescribed Authority on the ground that Prescribed Authority has not given finding as to bonafide need while actually it was given as is clear in the judgment of the 'Prescribed Authority. As such the impugned order passed by respondent No.1 can not be sustained. 9. In Shri Ram Vs. Nemi Chandra and others 1997(2) Allahabad Rent Cases Page 566, it has been held that the writ petition challenging the, order, remanding the case is maintainable in the High Court. Remanding of case in the matters of Rent Control Cases particularly relating to old buildings or old citizens causes enormous injustice to the parties, and appellate Court unless It feels for very pressing reason to do so, should not remand the case and else the old buildings would be dilapidated day by day or the senior citizens' would leave the world before ,they see fate of their case. 10. In view of the above discussions, the Impugned order setting a-side, ' the judgment and order of the Prescribed Authority, is liable to be quashed. Accordingly the writ petition is allowed. The Impugned order dated 10-07-1998 passed in the Rent Control Appeal No.2/1994 is quashed, and the judgment and order dated 27-01-1994 passed by the Prescribed Authority Is upheld and restored.)' No order as to costs.