JUDGMENT : 1. By way of the present Revision Application under Section 29(2) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 ("the Rent Act" for short), the original plaintiff/respondent - landlord has challenged the judgment and order dated 27.6.2003, passed by the learned Joint District Judge, 3rd Fast Track Court, Veraval, allowing Regular Civil Appeal No. 138 of 1999 (Old No. 75 of 1996) and has prayed that the judgment and decree dated 30.3.1996, passed by the learned Joint Civil Judge (JD), Veraval, in Regular Civil Suit No. 235 of 1981, evicting the defendant - tenant from suit premises be restored and decree of eviction be confirmed. 2. Since the facts of the case are exhaustively dealt with by the courts below, the same are not narrated in the present judgment passed by this Court in this Revision Application. The petitioner herein instituted a suit, being Regular Civil Suit No. 235 of 1981, in the Court of learned Joint Civil Judge (JD), Veraval, and has prayed a decree of eviction against the defendant - tenant from the suit premises. The learned Trial Court after appreciating the evidence on record, allowed the said suit and passed an eviction decree dated 30.3.1996 against the defendant-tenant. Being aggrieved, the defendant - tenant preferred an appeal, being Regular Civil Appeal No. 138 of 1999 (Old No. 75 of 1996), before the District Court, Veraval. The said appeal came to be allowed by the learned Joint District Judge, 3rd Fast Track Court, Veraval, by judgment and order dated 27.6.2003 and the judgment and decree of eviction passed by the Trial Court came to be set aside. Being aggrieved, the petitioner - landlord preferred the present Revision Application. 3. Mr. S.M. Shah, learned Counsel, appearing for the petitioner has raised the contention with regard to the manner in which the lower Appellate Court has disposed of the appeal by writing a judgment contrary to the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as "the Code" for short) as well as the Bombay Civil Manual. He submitted that the lower Appellate Court has not framed any point for determination in accordance with Order 41 Rules 11, 14, 15 and 31 as well as Paragraph No. 414 of the Bombay Civil Manual. He submitted that the lower Appellate Court has not framed any point for determination in accordance with Order 41 Rules 11, 14, 15 and 31 as well as Paragraph No. 414 of the Bombay Civil Manual. He has further submitted that it is a settled legal position that the first appeal has to be decided strictly in adherence with the provisions contained in Order 41, Rules 31 of the Code. It is further submitted that the lower Appellate Court, being the first appellate court, must give reasons for its decision on each point independently. Lastly, it is submitted that the Lower Appellate Court has failed to comply with the provisions of Rules 11, 14, 15 and 31 of Order 41 as well as Paragraph No. 414 of the Bombay Civil Manual. 3.1 Mr. Shah, learned Advocate for the petitioner in support of his submission has relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of H. Siddiqui (dead) by LRs. v. A Ramalingam, as reported at 2011 (2) GLR 1429 and submitted that the Hon'ble Apex Court has, after relying upon several decisions, held that if the first Appellate Court's judgment is based on the independent assessment of the relevant evidence on all important aspects of the matter and the findings of the appellate Court are well founded and quite convincing and such an exercise should be done after formulating the points for determination in terms of the said provisions and the court must proceed in adherence to the requirements of the said statutory provisions. 3.2 Mr. Shah, learned Advocate for the petitioner, has further submitted that it is also amply clear from Paragraph 414 of the Bombay Civil Manual that "the appellate court should frame suitable points for determination in appeals in accordance with the same principles on which issues are framed in the Trial Court. 3.3 Mr. Shah, learned Advocate for the petitioner therefore submitted that the impugned judgment and order passed by the lower Appellate Court be quashed and set aside and the matter be remanded to the lower Appellate Court for fresh consideration in accordance with law after framing points for determination in accordance with Order 41 Rules 11, 14, 15 and 31 as well as Paragraph No. 414 of the Bombay Civil Manual. 4. On the other hand, Mr. 4. On the other hand, Mr. R.C. Kakkad, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent has opposed the submissions made by learned Advocate for the petitioner and supported the impugned judgment and order passed by the lower appellate Court. He further submitted that the first Appellate Court has considered the case on merits and the judgment and order passed by the lower Appellate Court is just, legal and proper and the same would not stand vitiated merely because points of determination have not been formulated by the lower Appellate Court and, therefore, there is no need to remand the case for fresh consideration to the first Appellate Court. 5. I have heard Mr. S.M.Shah, learned Advocate, appearing for the petitioner and Mr. R.C. Kakkad, learned Advocate, appearing for the respondent. It is apparent from the main grounds, on which the impugned judgment and order passed by the lower Appellate Court has been assailed, that the same does not meet with the requirements of the provisions of Rules 11, 14, 15 and 31 of Order 41 as well as Paragraph No. 414 of the Bombay Civil Manual. The lower appellate court has formulated two points for determination, which are reproduced as under: (i) Whether the appellant proves that judgment and decree passed by Joint Civil Judge, J.D., Veraval, in R.C.S. No. 235 of 1981 vide Ex. 106 and 107 are illegal, perverse and erroneous? (ii) What Order ? 6. Now considering the points which are formulated by the lower Appellate Court, I am of the opinion that, the lower Appellate Court has committed error in not properly formulating the points for determination. The lower Appellate Court ought to have framed points for determination in accordance with Order 41 Rules 11, 14, 15 and 31 as well as Paragraph No. 414 of the Bombay Civil Manual and ought to have given reasons for its decision on each point independently. The Apex Court in the case of H. Siddiqui (dead) by LRs. (supra) in the context of Order- 41 Rule-31 has observed in paras 21 and 22 as under: "21 The said provisions provided guidelines for the appellate Court as to how the Court has to proceed and decide the case. The provisions should be read in such a way as to require that the various particulars mentioned therein should be taken into consideration. The provisions should be read in such a way as to require that the various particulars mentioned therein should be taken into consideration. Thus, it must be evident from the judgment of the appellate Court that the Court has properly appreciated the facts/evidence, applied its mind and decided case considering the material on record. It would amount to substantial compliance of the said provisions if the appellate Court's judgment is based on the independent assessment of the relevant evidence on all important aspect of the matter and the findings of the appellate Court are well founded and quite convincing. It is mandatory for the appellate Court to independently asses the evidence of the parties and consider the relevant points which arise for adjudication and the bearing of the evidence on those points. Being the final Court of fact, the first appellate court must not record mere general expression of concurrence with the trial Court judgment rather it must give reasons for its decision on such point independently to that of the trial Court. Thus, the entire evidence must be considered and discussed in detail. Such exercise should be done after formulating the points for consideration in terms of the said provisions and the Court must proceed in adherence to the requirements of the said statutory provisions." (Vide: Sukhpal Singh v. Kalyan Singh, AIR 1963 SC 146 ; Girijanandini Devi v. Bijendra Narain Choudhary, AIR 1967 SC 1124 ; G. Amalorpavam v. R.C. Diocese of Madurai, 2006 (3) SCC 224 ; Shiv Kumar Sharma v. Santosh Kumari, 2007 (8) SCC 600 ; and Gannmani Anasuya v. Parvatini Amarendra Chowdhari, 2007 (10) SCC 296 . "22. In B.V. Nagesh v. H.V. Sreenivasa Murthy, 2010 (13) SCC 530 , while dealing with the issue, this Court held as under: "4. The appellate Court has jurisdiction to reverse or affirm the findings of the trial Court. The first appeal is a valuable right of the parties and unless restricted by law, the whole case therein is open for re-hearing both on questions of fact and law. The judgment of the appellate Court must, therefore, reflect its conscious application of mind and record findings supported by reasons, on all the issues arising along with the contentions put forth and pressed by the parties for decision of the appellate Court. The judgment of the appellate Court must, therefore, reflect its conscious application of mind and record findings supported by reasons, on all the issues arising along with the contentions put forth and pressed by the parties for decision of the appellate Court. Sitting as a Court of appeal, it was the duty of the High Court to deal with all the issues and the evidence led by the parties before recording its findings. The first appeal is a valuable right and the parties have a right to be heard both on questions of law and on facts and the judgment in the first appeal must address itself to all the issues of law and fact and decide it by giving reasons in support of the findings. (Vide : Santosh Hazari v. Purushottam Tiwari, 2001 (3) SCC 179 and Madhukar v. Sangram, 2001 (4) SCC 756 ." 7. A similar view was taken by this Court in the case of Mahmad Ahmadbhai v. Fatmaben Abdulla & Ors. as reported in 2007 (4) GLR 2789 ; in the case of Prajapati Abraham Nagarbhai & Anr. v. Prajapati Harjibhai & Ors., 2010 (2) GLH 551 as well as in the case of Dumala Vahpara Gram Panchayat v. Chunilal Tribhovandas Patel & Ors., as reported at 1999 (2) GLH 959 . 8. In view of above settled principle of law, while delivering the judgment, the first Appellate Court is required to substantially comply with the provisions of Rule 31 Order 41 of the Code. In the present case, on mere perusal of the impugned judgment and order of the lower Appellate Court, it is abundantly clear that the lower Appellate Court has failed to discharge the obligation placed on it as a first Appellate Court. In my opinion, the judgment and order of the lower Appellate Court deserves to be quashed and set aside and the case is required to be remanded to the lower Appellate Court for considering the same afresh on merits and in accordance with law after framing points for determination in accordance with Order 41 Rules 11, 14, 15 and 31 as well as Paragraph No. 414 of the Bombay Civil Manual. 9. In the result, the present Revision Application succeeds. 9. In the result, the present Revision Application succeeds. The impugned judgment and order dated 27.6.2003 passed in Regular Civil Appeal No. 138 of 1999, by the learned Joint District Judge, 3rd Fast Track Court, Veraval, is hereby quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded to the lower Appellate Court to decide the same afresh on merits and in accordance with law after formulating proper points for determination. Accordingly, Regular Civil Appeal No. 138 of 1999 shall stand restored to file. The lower appellate court shall decide the appeal as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of order, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the learned Advocates for the respective parties. The respondent - tenant shall deposit the rent before the lower appellate court during the pendency of the Appeal. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent only. There shall be no order as to costs. 10. Registry is directed to remit the Record and Proceedings to the lower Appellate Court forthwith.