Judgment : Oral Judgment: Heard learned counsel for the parties. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties. By this writ petition, the petitioner challenges the judgment passed by the Additional Collector, Akola dated 25.7.2008 reversing the order passed by the Rent Controller on 23.8.2007 refusing to grant permission to the respondent – landlord to terminate the tenancy of the petitioner under clauses 13(3)(v)(vi) and (vii) of the C.P. & Berar Letting of Houses & Rent Control Order [hereinafter referred to as Rent Control Order]. 2. The respondent is the landlord and had moved an application before the Rent Controller for permission to terminate the tenancy of the petitioner/ tenant under clause 13(3)(v)(vi) and (vii) of the Rent Control Order. According to the landlord the tenanted premises came to his share in a partition effected in the family. It was the case of the landlord that the premises were more than 50 years old and hence permission was required under clause 13(3)(vii) of the Rent Control Order. Landlord also sought permission under clauses 13(3) (v) and (vi) of the Rent Control Order on the ground that the tenant had secured alternate premises and did not reasonably require the premises for his occupation. Landlord pleaded that he required the tenanted premises for his bonafide occupation and hence permission under clause 13(3)(vi) of the Rent Control Order may be granted. 3. The petitioner/ tenant resisted the claim of the landlord. The partition of the properties owned by the joint family of the respondent was denied. It was pleaded that there was ample accommodation available with the landlord and the need of the landlord was not bonafide. It was also pleaded by the tenant that he did not have any alternate premises in his accommodation and the claim of the landlord for permission under clause 13(3)(v) of the Rent Controller Order was not genuine. The petitioner denied that he had purchased a plot in the name of his wife on 31.4.1980 and he had orally promised the landlord that he would vacate the premises after constructing the house on the said plot. The petitioner sought for dismissal of the application. 4. The Rent Controller, on an appreciation of the evidence on record, by the order dated 23.8.2007 dismissed the application filed by the landlord under clause 13(3)(v)(vi) & (vii) of the Rent Control Order. The petitioner sought for dismissal of the application. 4. The Rent Controller, on an appreciation of the evidence on record, by the order dated 23.8.2007 dismissed the application filed by the landlord under clause 13(3)(v)(vi) & (vii) of the Rent Control Order. According to Rent Controller the landlord had not proved that he required the premises for his bonafide occupation. The Rent Controller observed that the tenant had also not pleaded and proved that greater hardship would be caused to the tenant, if the application filed by the landlord was granted. The Rent Controller held that landlord had not proved his case under clause 13(3)(vii) of the Rent Control Order as he had merely stated in his evidence that the premises needed major repairs, but did not state that he did not have any alternate accommodation for his residence. The order of the Rent Controller was reversed by the Additional Collector, Akola by the impugned order dated 25.7.2008. The Additional Collector, Akola granted permission to the landlord under clause 13(3)(v)(vi) and (vii) of the Rent Control Order. 5. Shri R.L. Khapre, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Additional Collector, Akola failed in his duty in deciding the appeal filed by the landlord as the appellate authority has not considered the evidence tendered by the parties on record and the pleas raised by them before reversing the findings recorded by the Rent Controller. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the permission under clause 13(3)((vi) has been granted without considering the material evidence and by making general observations in paragraph 7 of the impugned order. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it was necessary for the appellate authority to have considered the plea or objection as regards the partition as the same was effected with a view to overcome the rigors of the Rent Control Laws. Learned counsel for the petitioner then submitted that there is hardly any discussion on the other two grounds, though the finding recorded by the Rent Controller on the grounds under clause 13(3)(v) & (vii) of the Rent Control Order were reversed by the appellate authority. The learned counsel for the petitioner therefore, submitted that the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside as it is sans reasons and is not a judgment in the eye of law. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner therefore, submitted that the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside as it is sans reasons and is not a judgment in the eye of law. 6. Shri C.A. Joshi, the learned counsel for the respondent/ landlord supported the order passed by the Additional Collector on 25.7.2008 and submitted that the evidence tendered by the landlord on record clearly supported the finding recorded by the Additional Collector. Learned counsel for the respondent took this court through the spot inspection note and the oral evidence tendered by the landlord, Kamalkishor to show that need of the landlord was bonafide and the tenant had secured an alternate accommodation for his residence. The learned counsel for the respondent then submitted that the need of the landlord is also admitted by the tenant in his cross examination. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the finding recorded by the Additional Collector on the issue under clause 13(3)(vi) of the Rent Control Order is also just and proper as it is based on the material evidence on record. Learned counsel for the respondent sought for the dismissal of the writ petition. 7. I have considered the submissions made on behalf of the parties and have perused the judgment rendered by the Rent Controller and the Additional Collector, Akola. I have also considered the pleadings of the parties and the evidence tendered by them. On perusal of the same, it is clear that the appellate authority failed in its duty in deciding the appeal filed by the landlord and reversing the findings recorded by the Rent Controller. It is necessary to note that the findings rendered by the Rent Controller have been reversed by the appellate authority only on general observation without considering the relevant evidence tendered by the parties on record. It is not for this court to consider whether the findings recorded by the appellate authority can be sustained on the basis of the evidence tendered on record when the evidence is not discussed by the appellate authority and no reasons are recorded for reversing the findings recorded by the Rent Controller. It is not for this court to consider whether the findings recorded by the appellate authority can be sustained on the basis of the evidence tendered on record when the evidence is not discussed by the appellate authority and no reasons are recorded for reversing the findings recorded by the Rent Controller. The Additional Collector, Akola was the final fact finding authority and it was necessary for the appellate authority to have considered the relevant and material evidence on record and record its finding on the relevant issues after recording reasons for reversing the findings of the Rent Controller. Though there was oral and documentary evidence on all the three issues, the appellate authority has not considered the relevant evidence in the impugned order dated 25.7.2008. As regards the finding on clause 13(3)(vi) of the Rent Control Order, it is observed in the judgment that the landlord is the sole and best judge of his need and on perusal of oral and documentary evidence on record, it reveals that the landlord has come up with the specific case on the point of bonafide need. This approach of the appellate authority was not a reasonable one as it was necessary for the appellate authority to have considered specific oral and documentary evidence on record and discuss the same before reversing the findings recorded by the Rent Controller. It appears from the record that ample evidence is tendered by the parties. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order passed by the Additional Collector, Akola on 25.7.2008 cannot be sustained and the same is liable to be set aside. 8. For the aforesaid reasons, impugned order passed by the Additional Collector, Akola dated 25.7.2008 is hereby quashed and set aside. The writ petition is partly allowed. The matter is remanded to the Additional Collector, Akola for deciding the appeal filed by the landlord afresh on merits and in accordance with law. Since the landlord has sought permission under clause 13(3) (vi) of the Rent Control Order on the ground of bonafide need,, it would be necessary for the Additional Collector, Akola to decide the appeal as early as possible and positively within a period of six months from the date of this judgment. Parties undertake to appear before the Additional Collector, Akola appellate authority on 30.11.2009 so that issuance of individual notices to the parties can be dispensed with. Parties undertake to appear before the Additional Collector, Akola appellate authority on 30.11.2009 so that issuance of individual notices to the parties can be dispensed with. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.