Appellate orders must show independent reasoning and evidence review; bare concurrence can justify quashing and remand.

In release proceedings, the appellate court must independently address the sole issue of the landlords' bona fide need, consider the relevant evidence, and record reasons showing application of mind. A brief concurrence with the prescribed authority, without discussing the material or explaining why that view was accepted, is insufficient in law and cannot withstand scrutiny under Article 226. The defect rendered the appellate judgment unsustainable, so the writ court quashed the order and remanded the matter for fresh decision according to law.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellate judgment affirming rejection of the release application was vitiated for failure to consider the relevant evidence and for not recording reasons showing independent application of mind, and whether such defect justified quashing of the order and remand.

Analysis: The only material question in the release proceedings was the bona fide need of the landlords. The appellate court's judgment dealt with that question only in a brief concluding paragraph, without discussing the evidence or indicating why the prescribed authority's view was accepted. In an appellate determination, especially where the statute provides only one appeal on facts, the court must state the points for determination, consider the relevant material, and give reasons showing independent application of mind. Mere concurrence with the lower authority, without sufficient discussion, does not satisfy the requirement of a valid judicial appellate order and cannot protect the decision from scrutiny under Article 226.

Conclusion: The appellate judgment was not a judgment in the eye of law, and the writ petition was rightly allowed by quashing the appellate order and remanding the matter for fresh decision in accordance with law.

---