JUDGMENT Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J. - Looking to the nature of the order I propose to pass, it is not at all necessary to delve into the issues in detail. Suffice it to state that the plaintiff deity through its Kardar filed a suit against the defendant for possession and recovery of Rs. 8,600/- on the ground that the plaintiff was the owner of the shop in question which had been rented out in favour of the defendant on a monthly rent of Rs.50/- per month. The tenancy was created month to month as per the english calendar and the defendant had failed to pay or tender the arrears of rent. On 15.07.2000, the defendant executed an agreement in favour of the plaintiff whereby he admitted that till 15.07.2000 he was liable to pay arrears to the tune of Rs. 7,000/- and further undertook to pay the same in installments. The plaintiff bonafidely required the aforesaid shop for personal use and as such issued a registered notice dated 30.06.2002 under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, terminating the tenancy w.e.f. end of July, 2002. Despite notice, defendant failed to vacate the aforesaid shop and also failed to pay the arrears of rent. Hence the suit. 2. The defendant contested the suit by filing written statement wherein preliminary objection to the effect that the plaintiff was not the owner of the suit land, locus standi, valuation, maintainability, jurisdiction, suppression of material facts etc. were raised. On merits, it was averred that the deity is a juridical body and remaining allegation including the description of property were denied. It was further alleged that the suit land comprising Khasra No. 1472 is a Phati abadi owned and possessed by various right holders including the defendant from generation to generation and, therefore, the plaintiff was not the owner of the shop and as such there is no question of his being in arrears of rent. It was further stated that the defendant was owner in possession of the land measuring 0-2-0 bighas on the portion of the suit land and in the year 1970-71 had constructed khokha thereupon which was renovated in the year 1987-88 and a shop measuring 19'' x 14'' feet was then constructed in place of the khokha. It was maintained that the plaintiff had no right, title or interest over the suit property. Therefore, the suit be dismissed. It was maintained that the plaintiff had no right, title or interest over the suit property. Therefore, the suit be dismissed. 3. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court framed the following issues:- 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of two shops by way of ejectment as alleged?OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of recovery of arrears of rents as alleged?OPP 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of mesne profits from the date of termination of the tenancy, pendente lite and future mesne profit as alleged?OPP 4. Whether the plaintiff is not owner of the shop or suit land, if so, its effect?OPD 5. Whether the plaintiff has got no locus-standi to file the present suit as alleged?OPD 6. Whether the suit is not maintainable as alleged?OPD 7. Whether the suit is not properly valued for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction, if so, the proper valuation and its effect?OPD 8. Whether the plaintiff is estopped to file the present suit as alleged?OPD 9. Whether the present suit is baseless, concocted, if so, whether the defendant is entitled for special costs?OPD 10. Relief. 4. Notably, the learned Trial Court answered the above issues in the following manner:- Issue No. 1 : Become redundant Issue No. 2 : Become redundant Issue No. 3 : Become redundant Issue No. 4 : Become redundant Issue No. 5 : Yes Issue No. 6 : Yes Issue No. 7 : Become redundant Issue No. 8 : Become redundant Issue No. 9 : Become redundant Relief : Suit of plaintiff dismissed as per operative part of the Judgment 5. It would noticed that only Issues No. 5 and 6 were answered by the learned Trial Court, that too, by concluding that Uttam Chand, the so-called Kardar had no locus standi to file the suit and, therefore, had no authority to terminate tenancy under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. As regards the other issues, these were held to have become redundant and consequently the suit filed by the plaintiff was ordered to be dismissed. 6. The plaintiff filed the appeal before the learned first Appellate Court, who allowed the same and set aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Court. 7. As regards the other issues, these were held to have become redundant and consequently the suit filed by the plaintiff was ordered to be dismissed. 6. The plaintiff filed the appeal before the learned first Appellate Court, who allowed the same and set aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Court. 7. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the learned first appellate Court, the defendant-appellant has filed the instant appeal, which was admitted on 07.12.2004, on the following substantial questions of law:- 1. Whether the lower appellate Court erred in law in not recording issue wise findings reversing the judgment of trial Court, when the findings of the trial Court were restricted only to two issues? 2. Whether the notice terminating the tenancy of the appellant was illegal and the lower appellate Court mis- understood and mis-applied the ratio laid down in Khekh Ram vs. Yuvraj? 3. Whether the lower appellate Court acted with material irregularity in relying on the documents Ext.PW-2/A and Ex.PW-4/A which were inadmissible in evidence as they were not registered and properly stamped? 4. Whether the findings of the lower appellate Court that the rent of the property, subject matter of dispute, was Rs.100/- per month, dehors the evidence on record? 8. There can be no dispute that in case Question No. 1 is answered in favour of the defendant-appellant, then this Court need not give any finding on the other substantial questions of law. Question No. 1. 9. At the outset, it needs to be reiterated that learned Trial Court except for rendering findings on issues No. 5 and 6 had not at all touched any of the other issues and then proceeded to dismiss the suit. Once that be so, I really fail to understand as to how and why the learned first Appellate Court formulated the following points for determination:- Points for determinations: 1. Whether the impugned judgment and decree dated 29.11.2003 passed by the learned Trial Court are based on proper appreciation of evidence on record and legally sustainable. 2. Final order. 10. Once that be so, I really fail to understand as to how and why the learned first Appellate Court formulated the following points for determination:- Points for determinations: 1. Whether the impugned judgment and decree dated 29.11.2003 passed by the learned Trial Court are based on proper appreciation of evidence on record and legally sustainable. 2. Final order. 10. As observed above, once the learned Trial Court had, in fact, not discussed the evidence except to a very limited extent of deciding Issues No. 5 and 6, there is no question how the learned first Appellate Court could have come to the conclusion that the learned Trial Court had not appreciated the evidence on record. 11. What is more surprising is that based upon the aforesaid point of determination the learned first Appellate Court ventured to set aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Court. 12. To say the least, this was improper exercise or rather illegal exercise of jurisdiction vested in the learned first Appellate Court. Either the learned first Appellate Court ought to have remanded the case back to the learned Trial Court or should have called for issue wise findings on the issues qua which no findings had been recorded, so that the valuable right of the aggrieved party was not lost. 13. Having failed to do so, the judgment passed by the learned first Appellate Court obviously cannot be sustained in the eyes of law and is accordingly set aside. The substantial question of law is accordingly answered in favour of the appellants. 14. Consequently, the appeal is allowed and the matter is remanded to the learned trial Court for decision afresh, who after considering the material on record including the one, which was placed before the learned first Appellate Court, shall proceed to decide the case afresh in accordance with law. Parties are directed to appear before the learned Trial Court on 08.01.2019. Since, the suit was instituted more than 16 years back i.e. on 17.12.2002, therefore, the learned Trial Court is requested to decide the same, as expeditiously as possible and in no event, later than 30.06.2019. 15. Since, the appeal has been remanded back for the fresh decision, therefore, this Court need not to deal with other substantial questions of law having rendered redundant and, therefore, need not be answered. 16. 15. Since, the appeal has been remanded back for the fresh decision, therefore, this Court need not to deal with other substantial questions of law having rendered redundant and, therefore, need not be answered. 16. The appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.