JUDGMENT Hon’ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani, J.—Heard Sri R.P. Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioners-defendants/tenants and Sri Rishikesh Tripathi, learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent/landlord. FACTS : 2. Briefly stated facts of the present case are that the plaintiff-respondent is undisputedly the owner and landlord of house No. 52k, Azadganj, Sipari Bazar, Jhansi. The said house is a very old building. As per affidavit of the plaintiff-respondent/landlord dated 27.11.2013, filed in evidence in P.A. Case No. 22 of 2013 (Satya Prakash Agrawal v. Praveen Kumar Pateria and another), the defendants-petitioners and their ancestors have been tenant for more than 100 years. The defendant-petitioner No. 1 is working as Technician in the Railway Workshop, Kanpur and is getting about 1500/- as house rent allowance. He is entitled for railway quarter for residential purpose, but he has not moved any such application for residential accommodation and is occupying the disputed premises at the rent of Rs. 11.50 per month. It is also stated in paragraph 13 of the affidavit that the defendants-petitioners have a plot in locality “Lahargird”. The defendant-respondent No. 2 is the mother of the defendant-petitioner No. 1. She is also getting family pension after the death of her husband. These facts even have not been disputed before me. 3. The plaintiff-respondent has another house being house No. 89, Azadganj, Sipari Bazar, Jhansi in which he is carrying on business of electrical goods on the ground-floor, while the first floor is being occupied for the residential purpose. His family consists of five members. He had filed a release application under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 on the ground of bona fide need of the disputed house being P.A. Case No. 22 of 2013, which was rejected by the Prescribed Authority by judgment dated 16.1.2017.The release application of the plaintiff-respondent was rejected on the ground that the reason for bona fide need shown by him in the plaint as well as in the aforesaid affidavit filed in evidence are self-contradictory, inasmuch as, while in the release application he has set up the bona fide need of the disputed house for residential purpose for his son and his family and for garage and drawing room etc. but in the aforesaid affidavit filed in evidence he stated the need of the disputed house for residence and also for expansion of business. 4. but in the aforesaid affidavit filed in evidence he stated the need of the disputed house for residence and also for expansion of business. 4. Aggrieved with this judgment, the plaintiff-respondent had filed Rent Control Appeal No. 05 of 2017 (Satya Prakash Agrawal v. Praveen Kumar Pateria and another), which has been allowed by the impugned judgment dated 17.8.2017 passed by the Court of Additional District Judge/Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Jhansi. 5. Aggrieved with the aforesaid decision of the appellate Court, the defendants-petitioners have filed the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. SUBMISSIONS : 6. Submission of the learned counsel for the defendants-petitioners/tenants is that as per written statement the plaintiff-respondent has set up the need of the disputed house for residential purpose, while in his affidavit he has stated the need for commercial purpose. Since, the disputed house is a residential house, therefore, the appellate Court has committed a manifest error of law to hold the bona fide need of the plaintiff-respondent for the disputed house. There cannot be any bona fide need for commercial purpose, when the disputed property was being used for residential purpose. He further submits that the prescribed authority has lawfully passed the order rejecting the release application of the plaintiff-respondent and, therefore, the appellate Court has committed a manifest error of law to allow the Rent Control Appeal No. 05 of 2017. 7. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent supports the impugned judgment dated 17.8.2017 passed in Rent Control Appeal No. 05 of 2017. He submits that the defendant-petitioner No. 1. is working as Technician in the Railway Workshop and is entitled for a railway quarter for residential purpose, but he has made no effort to get a residential quarter of railway. He is paying rent of merely Rs. 11.50 per month against the house rent allowance of Rs. 1500/- per moth being received by him from the railways. He submits that the plaintiff-respondent is in bona fide need of the disputed house to meet the requirement of residential accommodation for his son and family and also for garage to keep his vehicles. He also needs a drawing room, which is not available. He further submits that in the absence of garage he has to park his vehicles on the street somewhere else. He supports the impugned judgment passed by this Court. He also needs a drawing room, which is not available. He further submits that in the absence of garage he has to park his vehicles on the street somewhere else. He supports the impugned judgment passed by this Court. The prescribed authority observed that the plaintiff-respondent has not disclosed the names of his relatives, who are stated to visit him and for such purpose he needs her drawing room. DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS : 8. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsels for the parties and perused the records of the petition before me. 9. The findings recorded by the prescribed authority were set aside by the appellate Court on the ground that the family of the plaintiff-respondent consists of self, his son, daughter-in-law, grand son and grand daughter. He has also political life. His grand children are aged about 15-16 years and, therefore, they require separate study room and bed room. There is no need to mention in the release application, the names of the guests, who used to come or who may come. Non-mention of names of relatives has no adverse effect on the release application. The evidence brought on record shows that the plaintiff-respondent needs a drawing room which may also be used for meeting purpose also. As per rejoinder (Paper No. 12-A), the first floor of house No. 89 is in use of the plaintiff-respondent for residential purpose, which consists of two rooms, kitchen and bath-room. The defendants-petitioners No. 1 is getting house rent allowance of Rs. 1104/-, while he is occupying the disputed house only on a rent of Rs. 11/- per month and, therefore, in view of the law laid down by High Court in Javed Jameel v. District Judge, Lucknow, 2006 (3) JCLR 346 , the disputed house deserves to be released. 10. The findings recorded by the appellate Court is based on consideration of evidences on record. 11. Perusal of the plaint as well as the affidavit in question i.e., affidavit dated 27.11.2013 heavily relied by the Prescribed Authority would show that the plaintiff-respondent has clearly stated his need of the disputed house for residential purpose and for garage. 10. The findings recorded by the appellate Court is based on consideration of evidences on record. 11. Perusal of the plaint as well as the affidavit in question i.e., affidavit dated 27.11.2013 heavily relied by the Prescribed Authority would show that the plaintiff-respondent has clearly stated his need of the disputed house for residential purpose and for garage. In paragraph-11 of the affidavit filed in evidence he stated that he is running business under the name and style of Sri S.P. Radios, while his son is running the business under the name and style of S.P. Electricals, which both are being run at one and the same place which is causing extreme hardship and, therefore, he is in bona fide need of the disputed house for residential and garage purposes. In this paragraph he has also expressed need for godown also. Merely because the plaintiff-respondent has mentioned at one place in paragraph-11 of the affidavit that the space for godown is needed, it cannot mean that the plaintiff-respondent has set up the need of the disputed house only for godown for business purpose. He has set up the bona fide need basically for residential purposes and for garage. 12. The defendant-petitioner No. 1 has not made any effort to get some other residential accommodation, although undisputedly, he being a technician in the Railway Workshop, is entitled for residential accommodation being provided by the Railways. Under the circumstances, the bona fide need as well as the comparative hardship have been established by the plaintiff-respondent. 13. The dominant purpose for release set up by the plaintiff-respondent is residential in the case of Shanti Swaroop Sharma v. Rajesh Kumar Saxena, 2017(3) ALJ 374, this Court considered the dominant purpose of release and held as under : “Insofar as the submission that the Court below has not appropriately discussed and found that the dominant purpose of release was residential is concerned, this Court is of the view that no doubt the judgment of the Court below is not very happily worded but that by itself is no ground to set it aside. Because in pith and substance the judgment discloses that from the affidavits brought on record it appeared that a room was required for the purpose of setting up an office and three rooms were required for satisfying the residential need whereas the Courtyard was required to satisfy need for a godown. Because in pith and substance the judgment discloses that from the affidavits brought on record it appeared that a room was required for the purpose of setting up an office and three rooms were required for satisfying the residential need whereas the Courtyard was required to satisfy need for a godown. Admittedly, the landlord had no place of residence in district Pilibhit therefore once the need was there to settle in Pilibhit, in connection with occupation, residential need becomes paramount. Further, as the Court below found from the affidavits that the extent of accommodation required to satisfy residential need was greater than what was required to satisfy commercial need, it can easily be inferred that the dominant purpose was residential. Under the circumstances, this Court is of the view that from the tenor of the judgment it is clear that dominant purpose was found to be residential and not commercial. Accordingly, the bar of clause (ii) of the third proviso to Section 21(1) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 was not applicable”. (Emphasis supplied by me) 14. In the present case also, as evident from the pleadings and the evidences, it is established that the dominant purpose for which the bona fide need for release of the disputed house was set up, was the residential purpose. 15. The plaintiff-landlord has established his bona fide need by producing sufficient material on record. It is always open for the landlord to live comfortably in the house owned by him according to his own requirement and the tenant cannot dictate terms to the landlord as advise what he should do or what he should not do. These principles are supported by the law laid down in Sait Nagjee Purshottam & Co. Ltd. v. Vimalabai Prabhulal and others, (2005)8 SCC 252 , Kailash Chand and another v. Dharam Dass, (2005)8 SCC 504 ; Rakesh Vij v. Raminder Pal Singh Sethi and others, (2005)8 SCC 504 and Smt. G. Kaushalya Devi v. Ghan Shyamdas, JT 2000(1) SC 127. 16. The facts of the case as discussed above and the discussions in the impugned judgment would show that the plaintiff-respondent has established his bona fide need and also established his comparative hardship. The Prescribed Authority has misread the evidences. The defendant-petitioner No. 1 despite being entitled for Railway Accommodation, has made no effort to get it. 16. The facts of the case as discussed above and the discussions in the impugned judgment would show that the plaintiff-respondent has established his bona fide need and also established his comparative hardship. The Prescribed Authority has misread the evidences. The defendant-petitioner No. 1 despite being entitled for Railway Accommodation, has made no effort to get it. He has not even moved any application before the railway authorities for allotment of residential accommodation as has been admitted even before this Court by the learned counsel for the defendants-petitioners. Thus, he has made no effort to search alternative accommodation after the release application was filed by the plaintiff-landlord before the Prescribed Authority in the year 2013. The comparative hardship established by the plaintiff-respondent, also finds support from the law laid down by the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of B.C.Bhutada v. G.R. Mundada, 2005(2) ARC 899 and the decisions of this Court in Jogendra Singh Bajaj (Dr.) and others v. IVth Additional District Judge, Saharanpur and another, 2005(1) ARC 394; Radhey Shyam Shukla v. VIIth Additional District Judge, Kanpur and another, 2005(1) ARC 65 and Braham Kumar and others v. Raja Ram and others, 2006(1) ARC 93. 17. That apart, the law laid down by this Court in the case of Javed Jameel v. District Judge, Lucknow (supra), as discussed in para-33 of the impugned appellate judgment, has not been disputed by the learned counsel for the defendants-petitioners before me. 18. In view of the above discussions, I do not find any legal infirmity in the impugned judgment dated 17.8.2017 passed by the Court of Additional District Judge/Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Jhansi in Rent Control Appeal No. 05 of 2017 (Satya Prakash Agrawal v. Praveen Kumar Pateria and another). The petition is wholly misconceived and, therefore, deserves to be dismissed. 19. In result, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Civil Misc. Additional Evidence Application No. 13723 of 2017 20. The petition is wholly misconceived and, therefore, deserves to be dismissed. 19. In result, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Civil Misc. Additional Evidence Application No. 13723 of 2017 20. After this judgment was dictated in open Court, learned counsel for the defendants-petitioners pressed his application No. 13723 of 2017, dated 19.11.2017 wherein he prayed as under : “It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to accept the aforesaid documents namely, certified copy of appellate Court judgment passed on 17.8.2017 in R.C.A. Appeal No. 4 of 2017 (Satya Prakash v. Suresh Kumar and others), certified copy of release application in P.A. Case No. 19 of 2013 (Satya Prakash v. Munna Lal) and P.A. Case No. 20 of 2013 (Satya Prakash v. Suresh Kumar and another) as additional evidence in the writ petition. If that is not done, the applicant/petitioner shall suffer irreparable loss and injury.” 21. This application is stated to have been moved under Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C. A counter-affidavit to the aforesaid application has been filed by the plaintiff-respondent. In paragraph Nos. 5, 6 and 12 of the counter-affidavit, the plaintiff-respondent has stated as under : “5.That, in reply to the contents of Para No. 4 of the affidavit it is stated that it is incorrect to say that premises in dispute are sought to be released for extending the business. The correct fact is that the paramount need of respondent landlord is for residential purpose to settle the family of his son in the premises and other adjoining tenanted premises after getting released, and after reconstructing the house. 6.That, in reply to the contents of Para No. 5 of the affidavit it is stated that two other tenanted premises house No. 50 and house No. 51 all the three existing in area of 12 feet x 30 feet each are being sought to be released in separate proceeding and this way total area of land available to the respondent-landlord will be 36 feet x 30 feet in which he will construct house to shift his son and his family. The copy of self drawn map of all the three tenanted premises house No. 50, 51 and 52 is being filed herewith and marked as Annexure CA-1. 12.That, the contents of Para No. 13 and 14 of the affidavit are incorrect and denied. The copy of self drawn map of all the three tenanted premises house No. 50, 51 and 52 is being filed herewith and marked as Annexure CA-1. 12.That, the contents of Para No. 13 and 14 of the affidavit are incorrect and denied. The House No. 50, 51 and 52 are more than 100 year old Kachcha Construction with roof of ‘Khaprail’. In each of the houses there are two small ‘Kachcha’ rooms and open space: total 12 feet x 30 feet. The respondent landlord will not shift his son in existing construction. He will demolish the old thatched construction and if all the three houses are released he will get open space of 36 feet x 30 feet and then the respondent-landlord will construct a house over the land and shift his son and his family. This has been consistent case of respondent-landlord throughout. His need will be satisfied if all the three houses-50, 51 and 52 are released”. 22. No rejoinder-affidavit has been filed by the defendant-petitioners to the aforesaid counter-affidavit. 23. In the case of Choksi Tube Company Limited v. Union of India, 1997(II) SCC 19 and Naseem Bano v. State of U.P. and others, 1993 (22) ALR 307, Hon’ble Supreme Court held that in case a plea taken is not controverted in reply, it amounts to admission of the plea. Since, no rejoinder-affidavit has been filed by the defendants-petitioners, therefore, the averments made in paragraph Nos. 5,6 and 12 of the counter-affidavit, as afore-quoted are liable to be treated as correct. 24. The fact that the respondent-landlord had filed three separate release applications in respect of the aforesaid three houses, has been well known to the defendants-petitioners, as also evident from paragraph-27 of his own written statement/objection dated 13.2.2014 in P.A. Case No. 22 of 2013, paragraph 22 of the affidavit dated 5.5.2015 filed by the defendant-petitioner No. 2 in P.A. Case No. 22 of 2013, the reference of the houses adjoining to the disputed house made by the Prescribed Authority at internal page-10 of the judgment dated 16.1.2017 in P.A. Case No. 22 of 2013 and the Amin Commission Report of the disputed and the adjoining houses as made in paragraph-24 of the impugned judgment of the appellate Court. The plaintiff-respondent has set up and established his bona fide need for all the three kachcha houses i.e., house Nos. The plaintiff-respondent has set up and established his bona fide need for all the three kachcha houses i.e., house Nos. 50, 51 and 52 each measuring area of 12 x 30 feet with total area of 36 x 30 feet. Thus, even if house No. 51 has been released by a separate judgment of the appellate Court, no adverse inference can be drawn against the impugned judgment of the appellate Court for release of the disputed house No. 52. 25. In view of the above discussion, I do not find any substance in the submissions of learned counsel for the defendants-petitioners that the impugned appellate judgment should be interfered with on account of release of an adjoining house No. 51.Consequently, this submission also deserves to be rejected and is hereby rejected. The application No. 13723 of 2017 is disposed of. 26. The petition fails and is hereby dismissed.