1. This is an appeal against the order dated 18-3-81 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge and Rent Controller Moro in Rent Application No. 14/81 ordering ejectment of the applicant on two grounds, namely, default in payment of rent and personal bona fide requirement of the respondent.
2. The brief facts leading to the filing of the above appeal are that the respondent filed the above rent. Application on the ground of default for the period commencing from December, 1979, and also on the ground of personal bona fide requirement. The above application was resisted by the appellant and their alia it was pleaded that the respondent wanted to enhance the rent from Rs.
3. 100, to Rs. 150, and that Rs. 200, deposit was lying with the respondent against which the arrears if any, could have been adjusted.
2. (a) In support for the above appeal Mr. Nuruddin Sarki, learned counsel for the appellant has made the following submissions:
1. That there was no default in terms of section 15 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, inasmuch as the rent for the month of December, 1979, would have become due and payable in the first week of January, 1980, whereas the rent application was filed on 23-2-80, i. e. Before the expiry of 60 days.
4. That there was not sufficient evidence on record to conclude that in fact the respondent needed the shop bona fide for his personal requirement.
5. On the other hand, it has been urged by Mr. S. A. Jalib that the appellant was habitual defaulter and that there was sufficient evidence on record to sustain the finding on the question of personal bona fide requirement.
(b) Reverting to the above first contention of the learned counsel for the parties, it may be pertinent to observe that Mr. Jalib has pointed out that the rent for the period preceding to December, 1979, was recovered by the respondent through the Martial Law authorities. It has been further admitted by him that even after that the appellant did not tender the rent.
6. On the other hand, it has been urged by Mr. Sarki that as a matter of fact the respondent wanted to get the rent sent enhanced and in fact the rent was tendered by the appellant through money order of which he possessed the coupon which was not produced before the Rent Controller. Be that as it may, it is an admitted position that the rent application was file on, the ground of non- payment of rent since December, 1979, up to the date of filing rent application, namely, 23-2-80.
7. Though in the original tenancy agreement dated 7-8-77, the monthly rent was payable in advance but since the agreement had expired in July, 1978, the terms and conditions of the same become inoperative and the parties were to be regulated by the provisions of Sind Rented Premises, Ordinance, 19,79. In this behalf reference may be made to a recent Full Bench case of the Supreme Court, namely, Mohd. Yousuf v. Abdullah (PLD 1980 SC 298), wherein it was held that on expiry of tenancy agreement the tenant becomes statutory tenant and is liable to pay statutory rent. In this view of the matter since 60 days period had not expired by the time of filing of the rent application, there was no default in terms of section 16 of the Ordinance.
(c) With reference to the second contention of the learned counsel for the parties, it may be observed according to the learned counsel for the respondent the bare assertion on the part of a landlord that he needs the tenament for his personal bona fide requirement without any further explanation is sufficient to prove the personal bona fide requirement. It has been further submitted by him that it was not even alleged by the appellant that the respondent had any other shop in his possession and in the absence of such averment the personal bona fide requirement of the respondent stands.
8. On the other hand, it has been urged by Mr. Sarki, learned counsel for the appellant that admittedly the respondent had let out the shop on 17th August, 1977, and that there was no plausible explanation given by the respondent as to why he needed the shop in 1980 for his personal -bona fide requirement. In my view the burden of proof of personal requirement is on the landlord. This will vary from case to case according to the circum--stances of the case. In the instant case it is an admitted position that the respondent constructed two shops in place of one shop and bad let out both the shops in August, 1977. It was incumbent upon the respondent to show as to why he had let out the shop on 19th August, 1977, and a to why he needed the shop in February, 1980: There is no plausible explana--tion given by the respondent. The allegation of the appellant was that in fact the respondent wanted to enhance the rent. He had also denied the respondent's bona fide personal requirement. In my view the learned Rent Controller erred in holding that the respondent's personal bona fide requirement stands proved on the basis of the bare averment of the respon-- dent and of one witness Sarwar without any further explanation referred to hereinabove.
(3) For the aforesaid reasons I allow the appeal and set aside the Order, but there will be no order as to costs.