1. ' This is an appeal against the order dated 13th December, 1981 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge and Rent Controller, Jacobabad in Rent Application No, 46/1981.
2. ' The relevant facts leading to the filing of the above appeal are that the respondent purchased the house in question on 3rd August, 1978 and served a notice on the appellant on 29th October, 1978.
3. After that he filed the above rent case on two grounds namely, default and personal requirement.
4. The above application was resisted by the present appellant. The learned Rent Controller on the basis of the pleadings of the parties framed the following issues :-
(1) Whether the application is not maintainable ?
(2) Whether the Court has no jurisdiction to entertain this application ?
(3) Whether notice under section 13-A of West Pakistan Urban Restriction Ordinance has been served upon the applicant ?
(4) Whether the opponent committed default in payment of rent for August, 1978 ?
(5) Whether the premises is required by the applicant for his personal bona fide use in good faith ?
(6) What should the order be ?
5. ' After recording of the evidence and hearing of the parties the learned Rent Controller decided all the issues in favour of the respondent by this aforesaid order of 13th December, 1981. The appellant being aggrieved by the above order has filed the present appeal.
6. ' It may be observed that Mr. Wahid Bux learned counsel for the respondent has made a statement that he was not pressing the ground of default. In view of the above statement the only ground which is to be considered is the personal requirement.
7. ' It has been urged by Mr. K. S. Nihal, learned counsel for the appellant that the respondent had failed to make out a case of bona fide personal requirement and, therefore, the learned Rent Controller erred in granting the rent application on the above ground. In support- of the above submission he has invited my attention to the fact that the respondent had owned another house adjacent to the house in dispute which was sold by him in 1977 with possession to one Lakhomal and after that respondent shifted to his father-in-law's house. On the other hand it has been contended by Mr. Wahid Bux that there was no plea raised by the appellant to the effect that the said house was suitable to the requirement of the respondent and, therefore, sale of the aforesaid house would not adversely reflect on the bona fide of the respondent. It seems that in the cross- examination the respondent admitted the factum of sale. The appellant has also produced certified copy of the sale-deed of the aforesaid house as well as of the present house which indicate that the area of that house was 35 sq. Yards whereas the area of the plot of the present house is 39 sq. Yards. The factum that the respondent has been putting up in his in-laws' house has not been denied. The only plea which was raised by the present appellant in the affidavit in opposition of the rent application was that the respondent wanted to have the vacant possession of the house with the intention to dispose of and thereafter to leave for India. It is true that in the cross-examination the respondent admitted the factum of the sale of the adjacent house.
8. However, in my view this in itself is not sufficient to prove bad faith on the part of the respondent. It was incumbent on the appellant to bring further on record the evidence to the effect that the adjacent house which was sold had more or less same accommodation and was suitable for the requirement of the respondent. However, it has been urged by Mr. Nihal that on the basis of the certified copies of the sale-deeds it can be inferred that the accommodation in the aforesaid house sold by the respondent was more or less same as in the house in dispute particularly for the reason that there is a difference of 4 sq. Yards in the area. In my view it will be matter of surmises and conjectures to infer the above conclusion on the basis of sale-deed. According to the respondent aforesaid house was sold by him for Rs, 5,000 whereas the present house was purchased for Rs, 10,000. It has been urged by Mr. Wahid Bux that the discrepancy in the sale amount indicates that the present house has more accommodation. In my view this is also based on surmises and conjectures. However, the fact remains that there is nothing on record to indicate that the house which was sold by the respondent about a year back from the date of the purchase of the present house had more or less same accommodation or that it was as good for the personal requirement of the respondent as the present house. The finding of the learned Rent Controller on the question of personal requirement seems to be correct as admittedly the respondent is putting up in the house of his in-laws.
9. ' For the aforesaid reasons the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. However, the appellant has been granted four months time to hand over the vacant possession on the condition that the appellant shall continue to deposit rent in terms of the Rent Controller's order, failing which the respondent shall be at liberty to file execution application before the expiry of the above period of four months. Furthermore, in case the appellant fails to hand over the vacant possession on the expiry of four months period the Rent Controller shall issue writ of ejectment without further notice to the appellant.