1. The appellant has come in appeal against the 'order of District Judge, Hyderabad whereby he reversed the order of Rent Controller granting ejectment of, the respondents from the premises in their occupation both on the ground of default and personal and bona fide requirement.
2. The learned counsel for the appellant has urged before me that the reversal of the finding of Rent Controller by the first appellate authority is based upon misreading of evidence and on insufficient grounds. On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondents maintained that the appellate authority has reversed the finding on both the issues on very cogent and logical basis.
3. The application in this case on the ground of default and personal requirement was filed on 15th August, 1974 and the default was alleged in payment of rent for months of May, June and July"--- 1974. The agreed monthly rent of the premises is Rs.
70. The tenancy started under a written agreement which was valid for a period of 11 months only and it is admitted before me that after expiry of II months period no further agreement was executed between the parties.' It is also an.
4. Admitted position that on the commencement of tenancy a sum of Rs. 760 was taken by the appellant as a security deposit which is still with her. In view of the dictum laid down in the case of Muhammad Yousuf v. Abdullah (PLD 1980 SC 298) the tenancy between the parties after the expiry of the period of 11 months mentioned in the agreement (Exh. 23) became a statutory tenancy and, therefore, the respondent was also entitled to claim adjustment of the sum of Rs. 760 which was lying as a deposit with the appellant. If this amount is adjusted against the rents due for the months of May, June and July, 1974 claimed in rent application there was no default on the date of presentation of ejectment application before the Rent Controller. Apart from it the first appellate Court also found that the respondent made genuine efforts to pay the rent and, therefore, there was no wilful and deliberate default on the part of respondent. It is also in evidence that the appellant was away from Hyderabad for these 3 months. .. In these circumstances, the reversal of the finding of the Rent Controller on this issue by the first appellate authority was neither arbitrary nor against the evidence -on, record. I, therefore, find no justification to interfere with the same.
5. PLD 1976 Kar. 832) that in view of the safeguard provided in subsection (4) of section 13 of the Ordinance the assertion of claim on oath made by a landlord that he required the premises for his own use should be accepted by the Rent Controller as bona fide even if such claim by itself may be insufficient, yet is consistent with the averment in his application and is not shaken in cross- examination and not disproved by any evidence in rebuttal. The above observations in the case, was specifically approved by the Supreme Court in the case of Mst. Toheed Khanam v. Muhammad Shamshad (1980 SCMR 593). After examination of the facts of the present case in the light of the above observation I am of the view that the appellant sufficiently succeeded in making out a case on the ground of personal and bona fide requirement and, therefore the reversal of the findings of Rent Controller by the first appellate Court was not justified. I accordingly reverse the finding of first appellate authority on the issue of personal and bona fide requirement and restore that of the Rent Controller.