JUDGMENT : Ajit Kumar, J. 1. Heard Shri Ashish Kumar Singh, learned Advocate appearing for tenant petitioner and Shri Atul Dayal, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Abrar Ahmad Siddiqui, learned counsel appearing for landlord respondent. 2. By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, petitioner has assailed the order passed by the rent appellate authority only on the point that rent appellate authority could not have framed the issues inviting additional evidence determining the same as if it was court of first instance instead of remanding the matter to the Prescribed Authority to take decision on points of bona fide need and comparative hardships more especially in the circumstances when the Prescribed Authority had not dealt with those points for it returned findings to the effect that there existed no jural relationship of landlord and tenant between the respondent and petitioner. 3. Mr. Ashish Kumar Singh, learned Advocate submits petitioner is not challenging the findings of the lower appellate authority on the point of existence of jural relationship of landlord and tenant between the respondent and petitioner, however, on the point of bona fide need for which the release application was filed as well as comparative hardships, the appellate authority ought to have remitted the matter to the Prescribed Authority to return its findings of fact on the said above two points comparative hardship as well. Mr. Singh, submitted that in the matter of rent appeal filed under Section 20 (2) of the U.P Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (for short ‘Act No. 13 of 1972’) while the procedure as prescribed for under Section 10 (2) is to be applied, the appellate authority could have invited additional evidence to meet the points raised before it as to the findings returned in the order qua the issues for which the evidence if were invited and led. Since there was no such point decided by the Prescribed Authority, all the more there was no occasion for the appellate authority to have invited any additional evidence as there was no judgment before it on the points, to be evaluated as to the core issue of correctness of reasonings. 4. Since there was no such point decided by the Prescribed Authority, all the more there was no occasion for the appellate authority to have invited any additional evidence as there was no judgment before it on the points, to be evaluated as to the core issue of correctness of reasonings. 4. In support of his submission, learned Advocate has drawn the attention of the Court to the findings part of the order of the appellate authority wherein it has been categorically recorded that on the point of bona fide need and comparative hardships no evidence was available on record received from the Prescribed Authority. Thus, according Mr. Singh, the appellate authority has virtually exceeded its authority and jurisdiction in deciding the matter as the court of first instance resulting in the denial of opportunity of statutory appeal against the order of release so passed by it. 5. Learned Advocate in support of his submission as to exercise of power by the appellate authority in framing points and receiving evidence has relied upon the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Malluru Mallappa (D) thr. LRS v. Kuruvathappa & Ors. Civil Appeal No. 1485 of 2020 arising out of SLP (C) No. 18092 of 2014 decided on 12.02.2020. He has placed before the Court paragraph-14 of the said judgment. 6. Meeting the argument advanced by learned counsel appearing for petitioner, Shri Dayal, learned Senior Advocate sought to defend the order on the point that the point of bona fide need and comparative hardships were very well framed by the Prescribed Authority and the order of the Prescribed Authority also reflects that the parties had led sufficient documentary evidence. He sought to urge that in view of the provision as contained under Section 10 (2) of the Act No. 13 of 1972, the additional evidence could have been taken by the rent appellate authority and the power under Section 10 are wider than the powers otherwise as contemplated under the general civil law under the provisions contained under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC. It is also submitted that merely because the court of appeal has acted as court of first instance in determining points, this Court may not interfere as ultimately it is a judgment on merits and the Court should endeavour to to look into the reasons for findings arrived therein on these points in question. Mr. It is also submitted that merely because the court of appeal has acted as court of first instance in determining points, this Court may not interfere as ultimately it is a judgment on merits and the Court should endeavour to to look into the reasons for findings arrived therein on these points in question. Mr. Dayal, also submits that this Court may not keep the petition pending and finally decide it as only law points are involved. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and having perused the records, I find from the perusal of the order passed by the Prescribed Authority that even though point No. 2 and point No. 3 were framed by it regarding bona fide need and comparative hardships but having come to conclude that there existed no jural relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties as the landlord had failed to establish any such relationship, therefore, it held that the application for release under Section 21 (1) (a) of Act No. 13 of 1972 was not maintainable. Having thus, returned a finding as to the maintainability of release application the Prescribed Authority concluded its determination without adverting to the issues, rightly so, of bona fide need and comparative hardships. From the perusal of the order I also find that even though number of papers have been referred to as led by the respective parties, but there is no recital in the judgment to the effect that these evidence were in respect of the point of bona fide needs and comparative hardships as well, nor the court has even made any observation as to the details of the papers that have been led and as to what points they were indicative of. The court of appeal has made a categorical statement in its finding part that there was no evidence available in the record received from the Prescribed Authority as to the point of bona fide need and comparative hardships and then proceeded to examine the evidence that were placed before it at the stage of appeal for the first time. 8. The court of appeal has made a categorical statement in its finding part that there was no evidence available in the record received from the Prescribed Authority as to the point of bona fide need and comparative hardships and then proceeded to examine the evidence that were placed before it at the stage of appeal for the first time. 8. In my considered view, this is a case where definitely the appellate authority has acted like a court of first instance and since the Prescribed Authority had not dealt with the point of bona fide need and comparative hardships, it ought to have invited its findings by the Prescribed Authority directing the parties to lead evidence. In the authority that has been placed before the Court,it has been clearly observed that the court sitting in first appeal must record its finding only after dealing with all the issues and evidence oral as well as documentary led by the parties reflected in the judgment of the court of first instance assailed against. Paragraph 14 of the judgment is reproduced hereunder: "14. It is a settled position of law that an appeal is a continuation of the proceedings of the original court. Ordinarily, the appellate jurisdiction involves a re-hearing on laws as well as on fact and is invoked by an aggrieved person. The first appeal is a valuable right of the appellant and therein all questions of fact and law decided by the trial court are open for re- consideration. Therefore, the first appellate court is required to address itself to all the issues and decide the case by giving reasons. The court of first appeal must record its findings only after dealing with all issues of law as well as fact and with the evidence oral as well as documentary, led by the parties. The judgment of the first appellate court must display conscious application of mind and record findings supported by reasons on all issues and contention [See: Santosh Hazari v. Purushottam Tiwari (Deceased ) by LRs. , Madhukar and others v. Sangram and Others , B.M. Narayan Gowda v. Shanthamma (Dead) By Lrs. and Another , H.K.N. Swami v. Irshad Basith (Dead) by Lrs and M/s Sri Raja Lakshmi Dyeing Works v. Rangaswamy Chettiar ]." (emphasis added) 9. , Madhukar and others v. Sangram and Others , B.M. Narayan Gowda v. Shanthamma (Dead) By Lrs. and Another , H.K.N. Swami v. Irshad Basith (Dead) by Lrs and M/s Sri Raja Lakshmi Dyeing Works v. Rangaswamy Chettiar ]." (emphasis added) 9. Section 10 of the Act No. 13 of 1972 is reproduced hereunder: "(1) Any person aggrieved by an order of the District Magistrate under section 8 or section 9 [or section 9-A] may, within thirty days from the date of the order, prefer an appeal against it to the District Judged and the District Judge may either dispose it of himself or assign it for disposal to any Additional District Judge under his administrative control, and may recall it from any such officer, or transfer it to any other such officer. (2) The appellate authority may confirm, vary or rescind the order, or remand the case to the District Magistrate for rehearing, and may also take any additional evidence, and pending its decision, stay the operation of the order under appeal on such terms, if any, as it thinks fit. (3) No further appeal or revision shall lie against any order passed by the appellate authority under this section, and its order shall be final." 10. A bare reading of the aforesaid provision would make it clear that Section 10 (2) is more liberal a provision as compared to order 41 Rule 27 of CPC but it provides for appellate court to call for additional evidence only. An evidence is additional when it is in addition to the evidence already on record. Even court of appeal if finds that there was no evidence upon parties that where left to be discussed by the court of first instance, then it must remand the matter to the court of first instance to give chance to the parties to lead evidence and to return a finding of fact, which would be subject to scrutiny and examination by court of appeal in continuation of proceedings and at this stage it may call for additional evidence for additional evidence if it needs or if party requires for that to assail findings of court of first instance. 11. 11. Applying the above principle of law, in my considered view, as far as the judgment on the point jural relationship is concerned, the court of appeal was justified in making assessment and appreciation of evidence on record to reverse the findings and rightly so learned counsel for petitioner has conceded to the findings but as far as bona fide need and comparative hardships are concerned, in my considered view, court definitely did not have the judgment of court of first instance before it to be assessed. 12. In view of the above, therefore, I find merit in the submission advanced by learned counsel appearing for petitioner that the appellate court instead of deciding the issue itself ought to have remitted the matter to the court of first instance, herein this case the Prescribed Authority, to decide the matter afresh after hearing the parties and appreciating the evidence on record. 13. In the circumstances, therefore, I consider it appropriate for the matter to be remitted to the Prescribed Authority to be decided afresh on merits. 14. At this stage, learned Senior Advocate appearing for respondent landlord Mr.Dayal submit that no fresh evidence are required to be led as parties have already led their respective evidence before the court of appeal and if Court remands the matter it may expedite the hearing to be concluded in a time bound period. 15. Accordingly, the order passed by the lower appellate authority dated 21.11.2024 in Rent Court Appeal No. 12 of 2020 is hereby set aside insofar as it determine the points of bona fide need and comparative hardships. 16. The matter is remitted to the Prescribed Authority to decide afresh on the basis of records, evidence and pleadings already available on record of the lower appellate court. If parties want to lead any additional evidence, it will remain open for them but the Prescribed Authority will ensure that parties conclude their evidence within a maximum period of one month each. The Prescribed Authority thereafter shall proceed to decide the matter finally after giving full opportunity of hearing to the parties within a further period of two months only on the point of bona fide needs and comparative hardships.