Suneet Kumar, J.

The petitioner is assailing the order dated 8 August 2014 passed by the Prescribed Authority allowing the release application under Section 21(1)(a) of Act No. XIII of 1972; the order dated 20 January 2015 passed by the Appellate Court rejecting the appeal thus, affirming the order of the Prescribed Authority.

2. The respondent/landlord set up need for release of the shop in question for establishing the business of first and second respondents, which was contested by the petitioner/tenant on the ground that the first and second respondents were engaged as co-owner in the business of the third and fourth respondents, the business was big enough to accommodate all of them. The tenant had no alternate shop suitable for setting up his business which has been running for the last 40 years which has a good-will. The Court below on considering the rival contentions and upon appreciating the material and evidence on record returned a finding of fact that the need set up by the respondent/landlord was bonafide and genuine, the comparative hardship was in favour of the respondent/landlord, consequently, the shop in dispute was released.

3. The sole submission advanc