JUDGMENT M. Wahajuddin, J. - This is tenant's Writ petition. The opposite sides are landlords. An application under section 21(1)(a) was filed on behalf of the landlord seeking possession of the shop in the tenancy of the present petitioner on the ground of their alleged needs. The prescribed authority held that there was no bona fide need of the landlord and further held that comparative need of the tenant was greater and the application was rejected. The landlord then preferred an appeal. The appeal was allowed. The judgment and order of the prescribed authority was reversed and the appellate court held that there is a bona fide need of the landlord and on consideration of comparative need the need of the landlord was found greater and the tenant can well shift his business. 2. The finding of the appellate court is challenged in this writ petition etc. on various grounds. 3. It would appear that respondents 1 and 2 were admittedly employed in R.K. Plastic at Agra on certain emoluments. Their allegation is that the industry has ceased functioning and they are unemployed. Their further allegation is that they want to start from goods shop in the premises occupied by the petitioner as tenant and are in bona fide need of I it. A mention was also made of the various liabilities of the family viz. marriage of sister, payment of rent of the rented house at Agra so on and so forth. So far this aspect is concerned the petitioner's stand was that actually it is just a devise to have the shop vacated and the landlord has sufficient land in the rural area with considerable income and they are not genuinely desirous at all for having an from goods shop at Etah and such stand has been taken mala-fide, simply to have the shop vacated. 4. I have given my anxious consideration to the argument urged in this connection. It would appear that a false notice was initially given on behalf of the landlord that the petitioner is simply a partner and to account for the profits and should vacate the premises. That notice has been annexed and it would no doubt appear that initially a wrong stand was taken. It would appear that a false notice was initially given on behalf of the landlord that the petitioner is simply a partner and to account for the profits and should vacate the premises. That notice has been annexed and it would no doubt appear that initially a wrong stand was taken. It would also appear that another correspondence was exchanged and letter was addressed to the petitioner that there are many customers for the Etah shop and if he is also desirous in negotiation may be carried. But all this is not vital for the decision. These developments took place in 1919 or earlier. The present stand of the landlord is that later it was contemplated and decided that respondents Nos. 1 and 2 may go for iron good business at Eatli itself. It was urged that the respondents have sufficient land with huge profits so where is the need for setting up for any business in the shop. It was also urged that the respondents have a rented house at Agra and residing there at Agra so they can well settle at Agra Rather than at Etah. It was further pointed out that even in 1982-83 respondents started demanding a higher rent of Rs. 100/- malafide and a suit has been filed. It is a matter of common knowledge to that people from rural area are tempted to shift to urban areas. In fact the very circumstance that the landlord have rented house at Agra will go the indicate that not with standing any landed property in the village they have been keen not to stay in the village simply depending upon the income of landed property. In fact there may be hundred and thousand of persons who have landed property in the village but they carry on profession, enter into services, do business so forth and so on, so holding of my landed property in the village would not weigh against the landlord alleged need. Having taken such view it would be immaterial whether the landlord has 16 bighas of land as maintained by the petitioner or 8 bighas of land as maintained by the landlord. 5. That it is a common ground that respondents Nos. 1 and 2 were in past serving in a plastic Industries concerned that in itself would strongly indicate that they were keen to supplement the income and even go for a job. 5. That it is a common ground that respondents Nos. 1 and 2 were in past serving in a plastic Industries concerned that in itself would strongly indicate that they were keen to supplement the income and even go for a job. It would appear that a plea was raised by the landlord that respondents services stand terminated because Industry has ceased to function. The particular given may not be every accurate in the sense that at one place Katra Madari Khan Agra at another place Moballa Bagh Muzzaffar Khan was mentioned. However the plastic concerned Industry is the same. True that in the additional evidence a plea was taken that the allegations are not admitted Under the Civil Procedure Code such plea will not amount to denial and would ten amount to rather admission. Even if the petitioner's submission that any technical view should not be taken and strict rules of Civil Procedure Code should not be his applied in proceeding like that under the Rent Control Act, there is another circumstance which will weigh against the petitioner. The respondents had supported their stand by an affidavit. In the counter affidavit given on behalf of the petitioner I find that there is no denial or rebuttal of the allegation. It is a settled law that where any fact is stated on oath and such averment remains undenied in the counter affidavit there will be no reason to accept. it. The appellate court may have used a lose phraseograph to say that there is not a whisper of petitioner's stand in question but in substance it is never the less correct because affidavit of the landlord remains un-controverted on this points. It would therefore found that respondents Nos. 1 and 2 have lost their job in the plastic concern and in this changed circumstances their anxiety to have any business of their own is understandable. 6. It was urged that in any case respondents can have such business at Agra. If a person has to start any business choice of the place should be left to him rather dictated by any other individual. So many considerations weigh in the matter of starting any business of industries. It was next urged that the respondents at one stage were desirous of selling away the shop at Etah. If a person has to start any business choice of the place should be left to him rather dictated by any other individual. So many considerations weigh in the matter of starting any business of industries. It was next urged that the respondents at one stage were desirous of selling away the shop at Etah. He is so desirous at that stage but that would not mean that it some subsequent date they could not change their mind as to decide to have their own business in the very shop at Etah. It was further urged that they could acquire any shop at Agra itself. But there may be so many factors standing in the way and this Court will not go to make conjectures and it would be sufficient to observe that the respondents cannot be compelled to have their business at Agra. 7. They have stated on oath that they will have iron workshop at Etah in the premises. If they do not go for such business they can will be run down for perjury in case shop is not used for their own business and is either vacant or let out at higher rent. I am making this observation to bar against any abuse of the premises granted to the landlord under the aforesaid provision of Section 21. To my mind also the need of the landlord appear to be genuine and bona fide. When I have already discussed this aspect it will be need less to refer to the various pronouncements dated on behalf of the opposite parties that question of fact adjudicated by the appellate court cannot be entered into by the High Court and rulings cited by the petitioner to the contrary. 8. The next point that arises for consideration is the tenant's comparative need. It would be found that four accommodation have been purchased in the name of various members of the tenant's family that is sons wife's. The tenant petitioner has joint family. The allegation is that of two son helps in the business. When that is the position the premises acquired are available for the benefit of the petitioner also. The sale deed was filed concerning the premises reciting that the vendee is free to keep the premises in his own possession or let out whenever he desires. There is a controversy concerning certain affidavit and counter affidavit. When that is the position the premises acquired are available for the benefit of the petitioner also. The sale deed was filed concerning the premises reciting that the vendee is free to keep the premises in his own possession or let out whenever he desires. There is a controversy concerning certain affidavit and counter affidavit. The landlord took a stand on the point of there four accommodation that he did not file any affidavit nor there was any counter affidavit of the present petitioner. This stand was based on certain recital of the order sheet. One is well aware that the order sheets are generally written by Readers and they are not mindful of being correct in the nature a document etc. So on that basis alone one cannot come to a positive conclusion. Certified copies of the affidavit and counter affidavit have been filed and when that is the position it would not be safe to hold that they have not been filed before the appellate court. However, the affidavit and counter affidavit would not be a decisive factor, firstly there is a dispute whether two of the accommodation were vacant or none was vacant secondly there is a sale deed in which recital is that the vendors can take premises or let out the premises depending upon their sweet will. When that is the position the petitioner can well manage such alternative accommodation for carrying business and I will not hold that the comparative need of the tenant is greater when already as many as four accommodation has been purchased. I, therefore do not find any force in this writ petition but on one matter I would certainly accommodate the petitioner by allowing four months further time so that he may arrange for any alternative accommodation. 9. In the result this Writ petition is dismissed, but petitioner tenant is allowed four months further time to arrange for alternative accommodation from the date of this order and shift his business. Parties shall bear their own costs.