The central legal point established in the judgment is the landlord's right to seek release of premises for bona fide need, the tenant's duty to seek alternative accommodation, and the application of the principle of comparative hardship in eviction cases.

This writ petition has been filed by the landlord-petitioner, in the month of December, 1999, assailing the judgment and order passed by the Additional District Judge, Hardoi dated 29. 9. 1999 and the same was admitted on 22. 12. 1999. This Court has directed in the order of admission itself that on the next date, i. e. February, 2000, this writ petition itself may be finally disposed of.

2. An appearance has been put in by one Sri K. P. Tripathi on behalf of the respondents, whose name has been shown in the cause list. It is noteworthy that since 1999, this case has been listed on several dates, but till date, no counter-affidavit has been filed. On 4. 7. 2008, following order was passed by the Court:-

"list revised.

None is present for the opposite parties. However, learned counsel for the petitioner is present.

Learned counsel for the petitioner states that none appears on behalf of the respondents on any of the dates, hence the ex parte arguments may be heard

List in the week commencing 18th August, 2008 for ex parte hearing. "

3. This case was again listed on 18th August, 2008 and 1st September, 2008 and finally, the same has come up for hearing today, i. e. , 8. 9. 2008.

4. As per learned counsel for the petitioner, no interim order has been passed in this case and the respondent-tenant is enjoying the shop for a petty amount of Rs. 15/- per month situated at Railway Ganj in the city of Hardoi. Even a cycle stand, situate at Railway Ganj in Hardoi area, is charging Rs. 5/- for parking a Scooter for Rs. Two hours and Rs. 2/- for a Cycle. Here is a proper shop situate on the main road of Railway Ganj in the city of Hardoi.

5. Since no counter-affidavit has been filed for the last nine years, this Court has no option except to proceed with the matter and deliver its verdict. In the absence of counter-affidavit, the Court feels that the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the writ petition stands unrebutted. Further, this Court has specifically mentioned in the order dated 22. 12. 1999 that the case shall itself be disposed on the next date, i. e. in the month of February, 2000 and even in the last order dated 4. 7. 2008 that the case shall be heard ex parte, if the learned counsel for the respondents does not appear.

6. Since no counter affidavit has been filed, this Court is treating the averments made in the writ petition as uncontroverted in view of the decisions of Honble the Supreme Court in Choksi Tube Company Limited Vs. Union of India 1997 (11) SCC 179 and Naseem Bano Vs. State of U. P. and others 1993 (22) ALR 307 (SC) : AIR 1993 SC 2592, wherein the Apex Court has laid down the law that where a plea taken is not controverted in reply, it amounts to admission of the plea.

7. It emerges from the record that the aforementioned shop was rented out to one late Shiv Sevak Tripathi at a meagre rent of Rs. 15/- per month. The petitioner has purchased this premises alongwith the shop in the year 1987 and stepped into the shoes of the landlord. The rent is being received by the petitioner, as such, he can be defined as landlord as per the relevant provisions of Act 13 of 1972. The petitioner, in view of his growing family, having three sons, wanted to settle them in life as all the three major sons were unemployed. They wanted to set up their own business in the shop. A formal release application was moved in the year 1991, which was allowed by the Prescribed Authority on 13. 10. 1992. The tenant being aggrieved by the Release Order, had preferred an appeal, which was registered as Rent Appeal No. 12 of 1992. The appeal was disposed of after a period of seven years, i. e. 29. 9. 1999, reversing the order passed by the Prescribed Authority.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the order of the Appellate Authority on several grounds indicated in the writ petition. According to him, the Appellate Court has ignored the bona fide need of the landlord, that her three grown-u