1. ' This appeal is directed against the order of Rent Controller, granting ejectment application of the respondent on the ground of personal and bona fide requirement. The personal requirement pleaded in the application relates to the need of the family of respondent. The respondent allegedly wants to settle his children at Karachi as the education facilities at Kuwait where the respondent is in service are not proper. The admitted position in the case is that the house in occupation of appellant is adjacent to the' houses owned by the father and widow sister of respondent. The Rent Control after examining the evidence on record came to the conclusion that the respondent needed the premises bona fidely for settlement of his family at Karachi. The respondent who personally attended the proceedings in this Court on the last two dates of hearing is present today in Court and states that he has resigned from his job in Kuwait and has come down to Karachi for permanent settlement about a year back and that his children are schooling at Karachi for the last one year. He offered to produce his passport and progress _reports of children but it is not necessary to examine these new facts as after examining the evidence on record I am satisfied that the conclusion and inference drawn by the Rent Controller on the evidence duly recorded in the case are neither perverse nor contrary to evidence on record. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that the application filed by the respondent was not a bona fide one as the respondent though allegedly purchased the house with the intention of settling his family in Karachi in the year 1975 but no notice was given to the appellant for vacating the premises until May, 1978 and therefore, it should be construed that the application lacked bona fide. It is also contended by the learned counsel that the real dispute between the parties was regarding enhancement of rent which the appellant refused to accept. None of these contentions have impressed me. I have gone through the evidence recorded in the case and I after going through the evidence recorded in the case am satisfied that the respondent has reasonably established his personal bona fide requirement of the premises. The evidence of respondent's witness was not at all shaken in the cross-examination nor anything was brought in rebuttal to dislodge the same. The fact alone that the respondent did not immediately after purchase of the house serve notice on the appellant asking him to vacate the premises on the ground of personal and bona fide requirement is not sufficient to construe that the application lacked bona fide. I see no reason to interfere with the order of Rent Controller. The appeal is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs but the appellant is allowed two months' time to vacate the premises.