5 . When the matter was heard before the Prescribed Authority, the Prescribed Authority rejected the application for release. Along with the said application, the application for commission was also rejected and the Prescribed Authority was of the view that substantial accommodation was available with the landlord and thus bona fide need could not be established. The landlord preferred an appeal against the said order. The appeal was heard at length and the evidence was re-appreciated. The appellate court framed two points for determination. While dealing with the issue of bona fide need, it also observed that although the application for commission was rejected, the same has not been challenged before the appellate court and after discussing the case laws, the appellate court held the bona fide need, as alleged by the landlord, to be fully established. While doing so, it was recorded that while giving the premise on rent, the children of the landlord were minors and subsequently, they grown up and had married and had also children born out of the wedlock and keeping in view the passage of time, there are substantial increase in the number of family and apart from the accommodation in question, no other accommodation available with the landlord, as such, the need was found to be bona fide . While considering the comparative hardship, the appellate court recorded that the landlord had accommodation with 30 shops across the road, where the tenants were staying and no efforts were made for the last 60 years to find another accommodation or for construction of accommodation on the premises owned by the tenant in which the shops were running, as such, the allowed the appeal.
