JUDGMENT/ORDER : Sangeeta Chandra, J. This writ petition has been moved by the tenant challenging the order dated 25.1.2018 passed by the Additional District Judge/Special Judge, S.C./S.T. Act in Rent Control Appeal No. 3 of 2017 (Satya Prakash Agarwal Vs. Munna Lal Nai & another). 2. The learned Courts below have not been impladed as parties. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for and is granted liberty to correct the array of parties and implead the two learned Courts below as proforma respondents in the array of parties during the course of the day. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has a family of 13 members and has inherited tenancy from his father late Gyas Nai. His and the family of his nephew, namely Raju live in the disputed premises. There are 13 members in the family of the petitioner. 5. The application moved by the landlord for eviction of the petitioner. From the house in question registered as P.A. Case No. 20 of 2013 (Satya Prakash Agarwal Vs. Munna Lal Nai & another) was filed without disclosing any bonafide need. After affidavits were exchanged and evidence led, the Prescribed Authority had not found the need set up by the landlord to be bonafide. The Prescribed Authority had also observed that the landlord had several other properties in the city of Jhansi and he can set up his son and family in other properties which were lying vacant. 6. Aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 16.1.2017, the landlord filed Rent Control Appeal No. 3 of 2017 (Satya Prakash Agarwal Vs. Munna Lal Nai & another) and the learned Appellate Court has without looking into the evidence on record allowed the Appeal by order dated 25.1.2018. The learned Appellate Court has overlooked the Amin's report available on record with regard to the house in question and also ignored that the landlords are the owners of three houses i.e. house nos. 50, 52 and 89, situated in Jhansi and therefore landlord late S.P. Agarwal had sufficient space to set up separate house for his son. Moreover, petitioner's nephew Raju who also lives in the same premises was not arrayed as a party in the P.A. Case No. 20 of 2013 and the release application was liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary party. 7. Moreover, petitioner's nephew Raju who also lives in the same premises was not arrayed as a party in the P.A. Case No. 20 of 2013 and the release application was liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary party. 7. Sri Kamlesh Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand has pointed out that the Appellate Authority looked into all evidence on record and has also taken into account evidence which was ignored by the Prescribed Authority, for example, Paper No. 24-Ga, which relates to ownership of house no. 1113 Masihaganj, Jhansi owned by the wife of the tenant - Munna Lal Nai, namely Smt. Pushpa Devi. Evidence with regard to assessment by Nagar Nigam, Jhansi of the property disclosed that annual house tax of the house no. 1113 Masihaganj, Jhansi was Rs. 600/- and annual rental value of Rs. 6,000/-. There was one other house that was bought by the tenant. Although, the house in question had been given on rent to the father of the petitioner, it is apparent that Munna Lal Nai and his wife have bought one other house in the city in question and therefore their objections regarding their supervening need and hardship cannot be looked into. 8. Learned Appellate Court has also relied upon several judgments of this Court and of the Supreme Court that it is not necessary that the landlord "ground" of bonafide need should be rejected only because in the same city, he had other houses/property as well. It is not admissible for the tenant to suggest alternative accommodation to the landlord. 9. Learned Appellate Court has placed reliance upon Dhirendra Mohan Saxena Vs. Prescribed Authority, Bareilly, 1990 2 RCJ ; Sushil Chandra Gupta Vs. Prescribed Authority/Civil Judge (Senior Division), Hardoi, (2017) 122 AllLR 584 ; Jagdish Chandra Vs. District Judge, Kanpur Nagar, (2008) 2 ARC 756 ; Harishchandra Vs. Smt. Rajrani 2006 Allahabad, Civil Journal 766 to come to a conclusion that the bonafide need of the landlord cannot be disputed by the tenant by saying that the landlord has alternative accommodation. A judgment rendered by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Praveen Kumar Pateria & another Vs. Smt. Rajrani 2006 Allahabad, Civil Journal 766 to come to a conclusion that the bonafide need of the landlord cannot be disputed by the tenant by saying that the landlord has alternative accommodation. A judgment rendered by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Praveen Kumar Pateria & another Vs. Satya Prakash Agrawal filed under Article 227 of the Constitution, Number 6217 of 2017 decided on 10.1.2018 has been further relied upon by Sri K.K. Tiwari, wherein this Court had held on the basis of judgments rendered by the Supreme Court in Choksi Tube Company Ltd. Vs. Union of India, (1997) 11 SCC 179 and Naseem Bano Vs. State of U.P. & others, (1993) 22 AllLR 307 that in case a plea is taken which is not controverted in reply, it amounts to admission of the plea. The plea taken by the landlord regarding alternative accommodation viz. The house no. 1113 Masihaganj, Jhansi being bought by the petitioner and his wife, not being specifically denied and its assessment also being filed as Paper No. 24-C before the learned Court below, has been rightly relied upon by the Appellate Court. 10. This Court finds no good ground to show any interference in the judgment and order dated 25.1.2018 passed by the Additional District Judge/Special Judge, S.C./S.T. Act in Rent Control Appeal No. 3 of 2017 (Satya Prakash Agarwal Vs. Munna Lal Nai & another). 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed for grant of at-least six months to the tenant to vacate the premises in question. The parties are under litigation for the past five years and the petitioner has an alternative accommodation already in the same city, therefore this Court does not find it proper to give any more time to the petitioner as requested. It is hereby directed that the petitioner shall vacate the premises in question within a period of two months from the date of passing of this order. Subject to the condition that the petitioner files an undertaking within a week before the Prescribed Authority regarding vacating the house in question within two months. 12. The writ petition is dismissed. No order as costs.