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 petitioners - original defendant/appellants-tenants have challenged the judgment and order dated 29.02.1996 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Navsari, in Regular Civil Suit No. 196 of 1988, by which the decree of eviction has been passed against the petitioners as well as the judgment and order dated 25.11.2004, passed by the learned District Judge, Navsari, in Regular Civil Appeal No. 29 of 1996, by which the learned District Judge has dismissed the said Appeal filed by the present petitioners challenging the decree of eviction passed by the learned Civil Judge in Regular Civil Suit No. 196 of 1988. 2. It appears from the record that initially learned Advocate Mr. Asifkhan I. Pathan was appearing for the present respondent No. 1.1, but subsequently, he was permitted to withdraw his appearance, having recorded the same, vide order dated 14.12.2012. Rule was served to respondents No. 1.2, but he had not chosen to appear himself or through any Lawyer. Since learned Advocate Mr. A.I. Pathan had withdrawn his appearance, a notice of hearing was issued by this Court to respondent No. 1.1 on the same day i.e. on 14.12.2012 which was made returnable on 23.1.2013. As per the office submissions, notice was served on respondent No. 1.1, however, he has not chosen to remain present before the Court himself or through any Lawyer. Therefore, in absence of the other side, I have decided the matter finally after considering the reasons assigned by the courts below as well as the Record and Proceedings of the case. 3. The brief facts emerges from the record of the case are as under: That one Hasinabibi Abdul Hamid Amdavadi had filed a Regular Civil Suit No. 196 of 1988 in the Court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Navsari, against the present petitioners for decree of eviction from the suit premises which was let to the present petitioners. The plaintiff prayed for the possession of the suit premises on several grounds including on the grounds of subletting the suit premises, arrears of rent for more than six months as well as on the ground of defendant No. 1 having acquired suitable accommodation. The plaintiff prayed for the possession of the suit premises on several grounds including on the grounds of subletting the suit premises, arrears of rent for more than six months as well as on the ground of defendant No. 1 having acquired suitable accommodation. The suit was opposed by the present petitioners by filing Written Statement at Exhibit-17. The learned Trial Court framed issues at Exhibit-18 and after considering the pleadings on record, depositions of the witnesses and after examining the documents which are proved by the parties, the Trial Court came to the conclusion that the plaintiff-landlord was entitled for the suit premises and passed a decree of eviction in favour of the present respondents/plaintiff - landlord. The said judgment and order dated 29.2.1996 by which the learned Civil Judge, Navsari, has decreed the suit, was challenged by the defendants-tenants in the court of learned District Judge at Navsari, by way of filing a Regular Civil Appeal No. 29 of 1996. The learned Appellate Court by judgment and order dated 25.11.2004 dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment and order passed by the Trial Court. Hence, the present Revision Application under Section 29(2) of the Bombay Rent Act. 4. Mr. Zubin F. Bharda, learned Advocate, appearing for the petitioners, 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 of the Code as well as Para 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 of the Code as well as Para No. 414 of the Bombay Civil Manual. 4.1 Mr. 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 of the Code as well as Para No. 414 of the Bombay Civil Manual. 4.1 Mr. Bharda, learned Advocate for the petitioners 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 Honble 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, 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. 4.2 Mr. Bharda, learned Advocate for the petitioners, has further submitted that para-414 of the Bombay Civil Manual is of obligatory in nature and the appellate court is bound to frame suitable points for determination in appeals in accordance with the same principles on which issues are framed by the Trial Court. He has further submitted that this exercise has not been undertaken by the appellate Court. 4.3 Mr. Bharda, learned Advocate for the petitioners, 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 of the Code as well as Para No. 414 of the Bombay Civil Manual. 5. 5. Though, no one has appeared on behalf of the respondents, I have considered the decisions of this Court in the case of Kikubhai Pashottambhai Patel v. Babubhai Vallabhbhai Patel, 2005 (1) G.L.H.602; in the case of Jayshreeben Vasantkumar Vithlani v. Manjibhai and Company and another, 2007 (1) G.L.H.248 and in the case of Bhil Kanji Bhagwan (since dead) through his heirs Laxmiben Kanji and others v. Bhil Karsan Bijal and others, 2003 (3) G.L.H. 2080, by which it has been held that, if, the appellate Court has discussed all the points and arguments in the body of the judgments, no interference is called for in the matter either in the second Appeal or in the Revisional jurisdiction provided under the Bombay Rent Act. 6. Keeping in mind the aforesaid proposition of law propounded by this Court, I have heard Mr.Zubin F. Bharda, learned Advocate, appearing for the petitioners. 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 of the Code as well as Para No. 414 of the Bombay Civil Manual. In the present case, the lower appellate court has formulated only one point for determination, which is as under: "Whether the judgment of the lower court is perverse and/or requires any interference?" 7. Now considering the sole point which is 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 of the Code as well as Para 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 of the Code 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 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 (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 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. In a recent case of Budhabhai Bhikhabhai Parmarand and another v. Shantaben Wd/o Bhalabhai Becharbhai, 2013 (1) G.L.H. 127, this Court, while dealing with the provision of Section-100 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the provisions of Order 41, Rule 31 of the Code by relying upon the case of H. Siddiqui (dead) by LRs. (supra), has held that the first Appellate Court has to decide the Appeal in accordance with law on merits and after framing points for determination as envisaged under Order-41, Rule-31 of the Code. It has also been observed that on each point, the Appellate Court has to give its own findings, that too, after re-appreciation of entire evidence on record. 9. In addition to the above principles of provisions of Order 41 Rule 31 of the Code, the Bombay Civil Manual, which has been made applicable to the State of Gujarat, provides in detail the Civil Courts' functioning. Different Chapters provided therein make the provisions of the Code amply clear that how the original Court, first appellate Court and second appellate Court has to function. Different Chapters provided therein make the provisions of the Code amply clear that how the original Court, first appellate Court and second appellate Court has to function. To ensure the uniformity with regard to practice and procedure of civil proceedings, the Manual is an exhaustive guiding factors for a Court for deciding disputes between the parties of a civil nature. 9.1 As far as Appeals arising from the Trial Courts judgment, decree and order are concerned, Chapter-XX of the Code deals with the same. Para/Rule-414 of the Bombay Civil Manual provides about the manner, in which the appellate Court should frame the suitable points for determination while deciding the Appeal. Rule-414 of the Bombay Civil Manual reads as under: "414. 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. 9.2 In my opinion, combined reading of the Order-41 Rule-31 of the Code as well as Rule-414 of the Bombay Civil Manual make it clear that the first appellate Court is bound to frame points for consideration as if it is framing the issues provided under the provisions of the Code. Paras/Rules-53 and 54 of the Bombay Civil Manual provides the method of settlement/framing issues. Rules-53 and 54 read as under: "53. Issues should be framed by the Presiding Judge on the date fixed for the purpose. They indicate the points in controversy, on which the parties are to go trial and give them notice of the matters which they are required to establish by adducing evidence or otherwise. No trial is likely to be satisfactory unless the issues are complete and precise. It should be observed that a party has to produce evidence in support of the issues, which he is bound to prove (Order 18, rules 2 and 3) and that the judgment of the Court shall record its findings on the issues (Order 20, rule- 5). These provisions should make it plain that an essential preliminary to a satisfactory trial is the settlement of full and precise issues. A judicious use of the provisions of Rule 1 Order 10 and subrule (5) of Rule 1 Order 14 may be found of help for collecting material necessary for framing issues in seriously contested cases. These provisions should make it plain that an essential preliminary to a satisfactory trial is the settlement of full and precise issues. A judicious use of the provisions of Rule 1 Order 10 and subrule (5) of Rule 1 Order 14 may be found of help for collecting material necessary for framing issues in seriously contested cases. The duty of framing issues under the law must be performed by the Court and the presiding Judge should not leave it to the parties or lawyers to frame the issues but should apply his own mind to the subject. There is however, no reason why the Court should not take suggestions from the parties as to the issues to be framed. 54. In framing issues the Court should proceed as follows: (a) Every issue of fact shall be so framed as to indicate on whom the burden of proof lies. (b) Every issue of law shall be so framed as to indicate the precise question of law to be decided. Note: When the claim or any portion of it is alleged to be barred by any law the issue shall also state the Act and section or rule or other provision under which it is so barred. (c) When the question is whether a certain section of law applies, the issue should be framed in the words of that section e.g., if the question is whether a transfer should be set aside under section 54 of the Provincial Insolvency Act, the issue should not be Is the transfer bogus and fraudulent? (d) Issues should be self-contained. The framing of issues such as Is the sale liable to be set aside for the reasons stated by the defendant in his written statement, dated... should be avoided. (e) Every issue should form a single question and as far as possible should not be put in an alternative form. (f) No proposition of fact which is not itself a material proposition, but is relevant only as tending to prove a material proposition, shall be made the subject of an issue. (g) No question regarding admissibility of evidence shall be made the subject of an issue. 9.3 Now in the present case, it is apparent from the judgment and order of the lower Appellate Court that the provisions of Order-41 Rule-31 of the Code and Rule-414 of the Bombay Civil Manual are not followed. 10. (g) No question regarding admissibility of evidence shall be made the subject of an issue. 9.3 Now in the present case, it is apparent from the judgment and order of the lower Appellate Court that the provisions of Order-41 Rule-31 of the Code and Rule-414 of the Bombay Civil Manual are not followed. 10. Even otherwise, the Appellate Court, in my opinion, has not re-appreciated the entire evidence and has not arrived at its own conclusion on each issues, which were in controversy between the parties. 11. 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 . 12. 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 of the Code as well as Paragraph No. 414 of the Bombay Civil Manual. 13. In the result, the present Revision Application succeeds. The impugned judgment and order dated 25.11.2004 passed in Regular Civil Appeal No. 29 of 1996, by the learned District Judge, Navsari, 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. 29 of 1996 shall stand restored to file. Accordingly, Regular Civil Appeal No. 29 of 1996 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. It is further directed that the Appellate Court shall issue notice to all concerned parties in the appeal before commencing the hearing of the appeal since the respondents in the present Revision Application who are the legal heirs of plaintiff - landlord, did not remain present before this Court or engaged any Advocate to represent their case at the time of hearing of the present Revision Application. The petitioners/original defendants-tenants shall deposit the rent regularly before the lower appellate court during the pendency of the Appeal. It is made clear that the present Revision Application is not decided on merits of the case, but has been remanded only on the ground referred to here-in- above. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent only. There shall be no order as to costs. Interim relief granted earlier shall stand vacated, however, the petitioners shall not be dispossessed from the suit premises till the final disposal of appeal by the learned lower Appellate Court. 14. Registry is directed to remit the Record and Proceedings to the lower Appellate Court forthwith.