ORDER : Narsing Rao Nandikonda, J. This Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is filed aggrieved by the Judgment and decree, dated 14.08.2018, in C.M.A. No.14.08.2018, passed by the learned Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, whereby the appeal filed against order in Case No.3/CA1/2007, dated 13.03.2017, was dismissed. 2. Heard Sri Vedula Srinivas , learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri C.Buchi Reddy learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the revision petitioner was allotted land admeasuring 325.56 square yards and 894.34 square yards respectively, for running Vyayamshala and educational institutions to impart education to both physical and intellectually poor and backward classespeople residing in and around old Nampally area vide G.O.Ms.No.1783. L.A., dated 09.10.1957 and G.O.Ms.No.751, L.A., dated 19.03.1959 on lease @ Rs.1/- per annum for a period of 20 years. The Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad also allotted piece of adjoining land admeasuring 887.33 square yards to petitioner-society for the purpose of playground on lease for a period of 20 years. 4. It is the case of the petitioner that respondents have proposed for sale of entire land in possession of petitioner and communicated the same to it vide letter, dated 25.09.1980.Thereafter, through letter, dated 19.07.1982, the respondents informed that sale cannot be made to a society and orally informed the petitioner to convert the same into Trust. Accordingly, the petitioner converted into “Nampally Vyayamsala Trust” duly registered on 27.11.1982 by transferring all the immovable properties and informed to the respondent about its readiness for execution of Sale Deed vide, letter, dated 16.10.1982.While the matter is pending for consideration,the respondents have filed cases against the petitioner with false allegations and enhanced the rent abnormally in spite of knowing well about renewing of lease and running of school by it. 5. Aggrieved by the dual stand taken by the respondent, the petitioner filed W.P.No.8161 of 1989, and this Court disposed of the said writ petition by fixing the monthly rent payable by the petitioner at Rs.2,500/-. The respondents with false allegations filed cases against the petitioner with a view to evict it from the subject premises. 6. Respondent No.1 filed counter-affidavit stating that lease period of subject land had expired long back i.e., in the years 1977 and 1979 respectively and thereafter no extension was granted. The respondents with false allegations filed cases against the petitioner with a view to evict it from the subject premises. 6. Respondent No.1 filed counter-affidavit stating that lease period of subject land had expired long back i.e., in the years 1977 and 1979 respectively and thereafter no extension was granted. It is stated that after expiry of the period, the petitioner has not vacated the subject premises and continuing in the said premises as unauthorized occupant. The said lands are not being utilized for the purpose of which they were given on lease and are being utilized for other purpose in contravention of the terms of lease. The petitioner did not accept the earlier offers of the Housing Board to sell the land, which in its occupation and did not accept to enhance rent. The petitioner simply wants to enjoy use and occupation of the valuable Board’s land at free of cost. 7. The respondent-Board filed Case No./CA1/2007 under Sections 52 and 53 of the A.P.Housing Board Act, 1956 seeking eviction of the petitioner from the subject premises and to award attachment of the property of the respondents for recovery of damages as determined by the Court etc. After hearing both parties, the Competent Authority allowed the petition and ordered the petitioner herein to vacate and handover peaceful vacant possession of the suit schedule property to the petitioner immediately, failing which the respondents shall be evicted forcibly as per Section 52 of the A.P.Housing Board Act. It was also further directed to pay damages @ Rs.52,140/- with effect from 01.01.1977 till the date of vacation/eviction. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed C.M.A.No.29 of 2017 on the file of learned Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. The learned Chief Judge after hearing both parties, dismissed the appeal with costs confirming the order of the Competent Authority. Aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner herein. 8. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed C.M.A.No.29 of 2017 on the file of learned Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. The learned Chief Judge after hearing both parties, dismissed the appeal with costs confirming the order of the Competent Authority. Aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner herein. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that twice the Competent Authority dismissed the application filed by the A.P.Housing Board seeking eviction of the petitioner and the same has become final and hence, the same act as res judicata; that petitioner is running high school in the subject premises meant for children of weaker sections and seeking eviction of such organization is unfair; that the APHB has failed to establish its title over the subject property and no documents are filed in support of its case. He also submits that learned 1st appellate Court passed the impugned order in a mechanical manner without appreciating the contentions raised by the petitioner in proper perspective. In support of his contentions he placed reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Orissa and others v. Chandra Nandi , (2019) 4 Supreme court Cases 357 and hence, he prays to set aside the impugned order. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submit that the petitioner is in occupation of the subject premises since 1957 and the lease period had expired in the year 1977 and after expiry of lease period no further extension of lease was granted either by the Board or by the Government, the petitioner is deemed to be an unauthorized occupant of the subject premises; that the petitioner has contravened Clauses 4 and 6 of the Lease Agreement by making unauthorized construction and also the purpose for which the land was leased to it was not utilized. Therefore, the respondents issued letter, dated 03.11.2006 to the petitioner to vacate the subject premises and handover the same to the respondent-Board. He further submits that the Competent Authority after considering the entire material on record rightly passed order and the same was confirmed by the learned Chief Judge, City Civil Court and there are no grounds to interfere with the same. 10. He further submits that the Competent Authority after considering the entire material on record rightly passed order and the same was confirmed by the learned Chief Judge, City Civil Court and there are no grounds to interfere with the same. 10. The case of petitioner is that since the cases filed by the respondent-Board were dismissed, the petitioner filed W.P.No.8161 of 1989 before this Court and this Court disposed of the same on the ground that no notice was issued before issuing the said letter and directing to treat the said letter as notice granting time to the petitioner to file objections, if any. Thereafter, the petitioner filed representation requesting the respondents to continue the lease or to sell the subject land to it. It is further stated that this in W.P.No.26653 of 2001 has directed that any plots belonging to the Housing Board in excess of 100 square yards shall be disposed by way of public auction. In view of the judgment of this Court, the Government withdrew proposal sent earlier as to sale of the said land. He further submits that the respondent-Board given the subject lands to the petitioner on lease for the purpose of construction of Vyayamshala and swimming pool, but the petitioner constructed school building in the premises and collecting fees from the students and contravened the lease conditions and directions of this Court in W.P.No.26653 of 2001.In support of his contentions, he also placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Uttar Pradesh and another v. Jagdish Sharan Agarwal and others , (2009) 1 Supreme Court Cases 689 and also placed reliance on the judgment of High Court of Allahabad (Lucknow Bench) in State of U.P. v. Chandrawali and others , 2024 (2) AIILJ 149 11. Heard both the counsel and perused the order passed by the learned Chief Judge. No doubt, on perusal of the order passed by respondent No.1 i.e., Competent Authority, as many as six issues were framed and the same were answered by it. The said order was challenged by the petitioner before the learned Chief Judge. As seen from the impugned order, the learned Chief Judge without answering the said issues and without giving any individual conclusion on the issues raised by the Competent Authority and without appreciating the grounds which are raised by the petitioner, the learned Chief Judge passed the impugned order. As seen from the impugned order, the learned Chief Judge without answering the said issues and without giving any individual conclusion on the issues raised by the Competent Authority and without appreciating the grounds which are raised by the petitioner, the learned Chief Judge passed the impugned order. Further, the learned 1 st appellate Court passed the impugned order only after considering the relevant provisions of A.P. Housing Board Act. 12. Further, it is the case of the petitioner that on two occasions, the petitions filed by the respondent-Board were dismissed by the Competent Authority on the ground that the Board has not produced any documents to prove its right, title and possession over the subject property. 13. As rightly argued by learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner that the learned 1 st appellate Court ought to have independently dealt with all the issues which arose in between the parties including the aspect of res judicata so also the aspect of jurisdiction of the Competent Authority, which has not been dealt with; and whether petitioner is having lease hold rights over the subject property; whether the competent authority is having authority to initiate proceedings against the petitioner under Sections 52 and 53 of the A.P.Housing Board Act or not have to be answered independently while considering the appeal. Since no proper reasons and independent appreciation of the material is placed before the appellate authority, this Court is of the considered opinion that the order passed by the authority is an unreasoned order as it should not support by any reasons. In the absence of the same, the said order remanded back to the appellate Court. 14. In Chandra Nandi’s case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held thus: “10. This Court has consistently laid down that every judicial or/and quasi-judicial order passed by the court/tribunal/authority concerned, which decides the lis between the parties, must be supported with the reasons in support of its conclusion. The parties to the lis and so also the appellant/revisionary court while examining the correctness of the order are entitled to know as to on which basis, a particular conclusion is arrived at in the order. In the absence of any discussion, the reasons and findings on the submissions urged, it is not possible to know as to what led the Court/tribunal/authority for reaching to such conclusion. 11. In the absence of any discussion, the reasons and findings on the submissions urged, it is not possible to know as to what led the Court/tribunal/authority for reaching to such conclusion. 11. The order impugned in this appeal suffers from aforesaid error, because the High Court while passing the impugned order had only issued the writ of mandamus b y giving direction to the State to give some reliefs to the writ petitioner (respondent) without recording any reason. 12. We are, therefore, of the view that such order is not legally sustainable and hence deserves to be set aside. 13. In view of the foregoing discussion, the appeal succeeds and is accordingly allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The case is remanded to the High Court for deciding the writ petition afresh, out of which this appeal arises, for its disposal in accordance with law keeping in view the observations made above.” 15. Taking into consideration the aforesaid decision, this Court is of the opinion that it is a fit case to remand the matter back to the learned trial Court for disposal afresh on merits. 16. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed setting aside the order, dated 14.08.2018 in C.M.A.No.29 of 2017 passed by the learned Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, and the matter is remanded back to the said Court for deciding the matter afresh after considering all the aspects and the issues raised before the Competent Authority and dispose of the matter, as expeditiously as possible, without giving unnecessary adjournments, within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Both parties are directed to cooperate for disposal of the case. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.