JUDGMENT Brijesa Kumar, J. - This petition is directed against the order passed by opposite party No. 1 allowing the appeal filed by opposite party No. 2 against the order of the Prescribed Authority by which the Prescribed Authority had rejected the application moved by opposite party No. 2 for eviction of the petitioner from the shop in question on the ground that the landlord, opposite party No. 2, needed the shop fos establishing his son. 2. I have heard learned counsels for the parties. 3. The petitioner Sardar Ahmad is running a shop dealing with in watches and repairs of the same. The landlord of the shop is opposite party No. 2 and the petitioner is tenant of the shop. The opposite party No. 2 moved an application for release of the shop under Section 21(1)(a) of Act 13 of 1972 on the ground that one of the sons of opposite party No. 2 namely, Vinod Kumar had grown up and was going to be married. The said son, according to opposite party No. 2, had completed his studies and was to be established so as to be able to earn his livelihood and to maintain his wife and it was for that purpose that shop in question, that is, the shop in the tenancy of the petitioner, was bonafide required by opposite party No. 2. In the application for release, a true copy of which has been filed as Annexure1 to the writ petition, the opposite party No. 2 has indicated in para 5 the number of members of his family, his elder son Ashok Kumar runs a shop which adjoins the shop of the petitioner. The application also states that family of opposite party No. 2 is a large family and Viriod Kumar is to establish a shop of General merchandise and grain. So far the petitioner is concerned it has been stated in the application that his brother Irfan also carries on business of watch and its repairs in a shop across the road. It is averred that in fact business of petitioner in the shop in dispute is being looked after by a servant and petitioner himself sits on the shop of Irfan. It is also said that the family of petitioner is small, hence in the above circumstances he would suffer no hardship in case he is made to vacate the shop in question. It is also said that the family of petitioner is small, hence in the above circumstances he would suffer no hardship in case he is made to vacate the shop in question. 4. On the other hand, case of the petitioner is that the shop in question is not at all bonafide required by the petitioner. It is also his case that he and his brother Irfan are separate. He himself sits on the shop to carry on the business. It is averred that Vinod Kumar carries on work of Dalali in the business of grains alongwith his father. It has been averred in the written statement that the application is malafide as earlier the opposite party No. 2 had moved for eviction of the petitioner but he failed. Again the opposite party No. 2 had disconnected electric connection which too was got restored through legal proceedings. According to petitioner the above circumstances indicated that the proceedings are malafide and have been initiated with a view to harass the petitioner. A true copy of the written statement filed by the petitioner is annexed as annexure2 to the writ petition. In paragraph, which has been renumbered as para 17, it is stated that there is yet another room on the ground floor besides the shops of petitioner and Ashok Kumar, which was being used by opposite party No. 2 as 'godam' and the accommodation could very easily be used by opposite party No. 2 to establish his son Vinod Kumar. It appears, on this point, a commission was also issued which found that after the shops of petitioner and Ashok Kumar there was yet another room which was intervened by some 'gali' or stairs. 5. The trial court has recorded a finding that the shop Diamond Watch Co. is that of the brother of the petitioner. While recording its finding it has taken into account the fact that in the presence of the Commissioner appointed by the Court the lock of the shop was opened by Irfan. It was also taken into consideration that the said shop was registered in the name of Irfan in the labour office. It also came to conclusion that in case the opposite party No. 2 wanted to establish his son Vinod Kumar he could easily establish his business in the third room available to the opposite party No. 2. It was also taken into consideration that the said shop was registered in the name of Irfan in the labour office. It also came to conclusion that in case the opposite party No. 2 wanted to establish his son Vinod Kumar he could easily establish his business in the third room available to the opposite party No. 2. It also observed that no other shop or accommodation was available to the petitioner to establish in case he is evicted from the premises in question whereas Vinod Kumar could easily be established in the third room which was found almost vacant by the Commissioner. With the above findings the application was rejected. 6. The appellate court, however, allowed the appeal. It has recorded a finding that the petitioner was sitting on the shop of Irfan Ahmad, namely Diamond Watch House. That being the position, the shop in question was not needed by him. On the question of availability of other accommodation with the landlord there is a bald observation that the landlord has no other shop or place to open business for his son, hence holding the need of the opposite party No. 2 as bonafide ordered eviction of the petitioned 7. So far the question of bonafide requirement of the landlord is concerned it may straightway be observed that there cannot be any doubt aboutbonafide need being there for establishinghis son. He has a largefamily. It is undisputed that Vinod Kumar is a grown up person who has completed his education quite sometime back. The case of opposite party No. 2 could not be doubted that at the time the application was moved Vinod Kumar was going to be married. A grown up son is to be married, has to be established in life and to earn his livelihood. There does not appear to be any evidence on the record to indicate that Vinod Kumar was engaged in the business of Commission Agents in the business of grain nor any such finding has been recorded by any of the two courts. 8. The next relevant question which arises for consideration is, if there some other accommodation available to the landlord for the purpose of establishing his son. On this point again it may, straightway, be observed that finding of the appellate court is wholly unsatisfactory. 8. The next relevant question which arises for consideration is, if there some other accommodation available to the landlord for the purpose of establishing his son. On this point again it may, straightway, be observed that finding of the appellate court is wholly unsatisfactory. The trial court has come to the conclusion that one room was available jn which the landlord could open a shop for his son Vinod Kumar, The trial court has also observed that this room opens on the road and in the same row in which the two other shops are situated, namely, the shop of Ashok Kumar and the shop in dispute. The appellate court has only made a bald observation saying that the landlord has no other shop or place for opening the business for his son. No evidence has been discussed nor reasons have been indicated as to why the third room opening on the road, as observed by the trial court, cannot be used as shop by the landlord. If any contrary finding was to be recorded the appellate court should have given reasons for the same. A bald observation cannot be given weight to nullify a finding recorded by the trial court. Another finding, which is unsatisfactory as recorded by the appellate Court, is about the fact the petitioner had been sitting on the shop of his brother Irfan, namely, the Diamond Watch Houqe. In this connection discussion made by the appellate court, in his judgment, may be referred to, where it has been observed that two of the persons who has filed affidavit in support of the petitioner are Tailor Master and one of the witnesses has not disclosed his vocation, hence they are not respectable persons of the Mohalla. On the other hand those who had filed affidavits in support of the landlord are mostly businessmen of the Mohalla and they are respectable members of the Mohalla, hence their statements cannot be said to be false. It is surprising that the appellate court should have taken such approach while assessing the truthfulness or veracity of the statements of the witnesses. The finding needs to be recorded on the basis of the statements made and testing it on the facts, circumstances and probabilities. Another fact, which has been taken into consideration by the appellate court is that the brother of the petitioner, namely, Irfan Ahmad did not file his affidavit. The finding needs to be recorded on the basis of the statements made and testing it on the facts, circumstances and probabilities. Another fact, which has been taken into consideration by the appellate court is that the brother of the petitioner, namely, Irfan Ahmad did not file his affidavit. A brother would not be member of the family. If he runs a separate business it may not be necessary for him to come forward to file an affidavit to negative the allegation made by a third party. The appellate court, thus, was in error drawing an inference by nonfiling of affidavit by Irfan. 9. In the result the case shall have to be remanded to the appellate court to record findings in accordance with law on two points indicated above, namely, on the point of availability of accommodation to the landlord for opening a shop in the third room, as found by the trial court. The appellate court shall take into account the material already on the record for drawing its own conclusion and to record a finding if the said room could or could not be used for opening a shop by Vinod Kumar. It shall also record a finding afresh on the question as to whether the petitioner sits on the shop of Irfan or it is a kind of joint business of the petitioner with Irfan, which is the idea behind the plea raised by the landlord to show that in case the petitioner is made to vacate the shop in question he would suffer no hardship. So far the question of genuine need of the landlord for opening a shop for his son Vinod Kumar is concerned that question need not be reopened. As observed in this judgment, there is bonafide need of the landlord for opening a shop for his son Vinod Kumar but that will have to be considered in the light of availability or nonavailability of some other accommodation to the landlord for opening a shop and the question of hardship will also have to be considered afresh depending upon the finding recorded as to whether the petitioner sits on the shop of Irfan, namely, Diamond Watch House or not. 10. 10. In the result the writ petition is allowed in part and the judgment and order passed by opposite party No. 1, contained in annexure8, is set aside and the case is remanded to the opposite party No. 1 to decide the appeal in the manner indicated in this judgment. 11. There would, however, be no order as to costs. 12. The parties may appear before the opposite party No. 1 on February 5, 1990. The appellate court may dispose of the matter expeditiously.