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 defendants/appellant - tenant has challenged the judgment and order dated 29.02.1998, passed by the Court of Civil Judge (J.D.), Kalol in Regular Civil Suit No. 71 of 1983, by which, the decree of eviction has been passed in favour of Original plaintiff-landlord as well as the judgment and order dated 29.03.2005 passed by the learned District Judge, Gandhinagar in Regular Appeal No. 34 of 2004, by which, the appeal preferred by present petitioner/tenant is dismissed. 2. Mr. B.D. Karia, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner has raised an important issue with regard to not following the mandatory provision of the Order 41 Rule 31 of the Code of Civil Procedure as well as Paragraph No. 414 of the Bombay Civil Manual, while deciding and delivering the judgment in the appeal. The contention raised by the present petitioner is that the Appellate Court has not followed the mandatory provisions of law and had not framed the points for determination and submitted that by deciding the appeal, the Appellate Court has raised only two issues which are not in consonance with the above facts. 3. Mr. Karia, 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. 4. Mr. Karia, 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 as well as the decision of this Court in the case of Mahmad Ahmadbhai v. Fatmaben Abdulla & Ors. as reported in 2007 (4) GLR 2789 and submitted that the matter be remanded to the Appellate Court for re- consideration in accordance with the law and as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as this Court. 5. On the other hand, Mr. as reported in 2007 (4) GLR 2789 and submitted that the matter be remanded to the Appellate Court for re- consideration in accordance with the law and as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as this Court. 5. On the other hand, Mr. Nilesh M. Shah, 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. 6. I have heard learned Advocate Mr. B.D. Karia, appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Nilesh M. Shah, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of 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 Order 41 Rule 31 as well as Paragarph 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 decisions on the above issues is bad in law and requires to be interfered with under Section 96 of Civil Procedure Code? (ii) What Order ? 7. 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 Rule 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 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. 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(5) Recent Apex Judgments (R.A.J.) 321 : 2007 (8) SCC 600 ; and Gannmani Anasuya v. Parvatini Amarendra Chowdhari, 2007(3) Recent Apex Judgments (R.A.J.) 582 : AIR 2007 (SC) 2380 : 2007 (10) SCC 296 . "22. In B.V. Nagesh v. H.V. Sreenivasa Murthy, 2011(1) Recent Apex Judgments (R.A.J.) 222 : JT 2010 (10) SC 551 : 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. "22. In B.V. Nagesh v. H.V. Sreenivasa Murthy, 2011(1) Recent Apex Judgments (R.A.J.) 222 : JT 2010 (10) SC 551 : 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. 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 ." 8. 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 . 9. 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 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 Rule 31 as well as Paragraph No. 414 of the Bombay Civil Manual. 10. In the result, the present Revision Application succeeds. The impugned judgment and order dated 29.03.2005 passed in Regular Civil Appeal No. 34 of 2004, by the District Judge, Gandhinagar 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. 34 of 2004 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 petitioner-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. Direct Service is permitted. Interim/ad-interim relief,if any, granted earlier shall stand vacated. 11. Registry is directed to remit the Record and proceedings to the lower Appellate Court forthwith.