1. ' This is an appeal against the order passed by the Rent Controller and 6th Senior Civil Judge, Karachi, dated 29-1-1983.
2. ' The appellant was;first inducted into the premises in dispute situated at B/38, Sindhi Muslim Co- operative Housing Society, on 26th September, 1973 at Rs, 950 per month and gradually the rent was increased first to Rs, 1,200 and then Rs, 1,400 per month. By an agreement, dated 13-12-1979 Exh.
3. 5 the agreement of tenancy was extended for further period of I1 months on the previous rent of Rs, 1,400 per month and in view of the personal needs of the respondent the appellant undertook by that agreement to vacate the premises in dispute after the expiry of 11 months period mentioned in Exh.
5. This agreement was attested by the 23rd Civil Judge, Karachi on 28-2-1982. After expiry of 10 months of this agreement the respondent gave notice of ejecment to the appellant and on the expiry of the rent agreement ejectment application was filed on 12-11-1980. Five grounds were taken for ejectment : (1) personal need, (2) default in the payment of 3 months rent, (3) damage caused to the premises by the appellant, (4) sub-leting of the premises by the appellant and (5) expiry of the tenancy agreement. The Rent Controller framed only four issues but did hot frame the issue in respect of expiry of the tenancy. The respondent has however, filed cross-objections to the appeal in this Court and has taken up the plea that the appellant was bound to vacate the premises in dispute after the expiry of the tenancy agreement Exh. 5 which was duly attested under section 6 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979.
4. ' The respondent examined herself in support of her case. She was supported by her son Ismail and one Haji Ahmed Ghanchi. The appellant examined himself in opposition.
5. ' The Rent Controller allowed the ejectment of the appellant only on the ground of personal need of the premises by the respondent/landlady. The other three issues of default, damage and sub- letting were decided against the respondent.
6. ' Mr. Asghar Hussain has submitted that the appellant has been in use of the premises since 1973 and has paid increased rent from different periods and that the ejectment application was mala fide and was designed to get the rent increased to Rs, 2,00J per month. He submitted that the husband of the respondent had died about 20 years before and she had admitted that she has been ill for a period of six years, therefore, her signing the agreement of tenancy in December, 1979 militated against her personal need because if she was in need of the premises then she should have refused to extend the tenancy of the appellant.
7. ' Mr. Nizamani on the other hand, has submitted that the appellant has given her bona fide requirements and has clearly shown that she is a diabetic patient and she supported her statement by a certificate from a doctor who is her nephew stating that she needs ground floor premises. The respondent has also stated in her examination that she lives in two rooms of rented accommodation and these rooms measure only 10' x 10', and she has no other house in Karachi except this one in Sindhi Muslim Co-operative Housing Society She has further stated that because of her being a diabetic patient she has to visit Diabetic Association of Pakistan which is situated in Sindhi Muslim Co-operative Housing Society next to the house in dispute and, therefore, it could be very convenient for her if she is allowed to live in this house. She has further stated that her family members have now grown up. She has three grown up children and one of them Ismail is a Karachi University student. In the cross-examination of Mat. Zainab Bai nothing has been brought about by the appellant to show that she has made the demand for the house with bad faith.
8. ' It is correct that in spite of her illness as a diabetic patient she has extended the lease period for 10 months in December, 1979 but the same may have been out of her desire to secure the possession of the premises from the appellant in a peaceful and voluntary manner. The appellant had evidently agreed in the agreement Exh. 5 that he would vacate the premises after the expiry of the period mentioned in the said agreement and, therefore, it could be a bona fide extension of the period of lease in order to settle the matter in an amicable manner. The rent previous to this agreement was Rs, 1,400 per month and this agreement did not increase that rent, therefore, there was no mala fides involved in this case. Merely the fact that rent has been increased previously would not mean that the premises were not needed by the appellant in 1980 for the use of herself and her family.
9. ' The appellant Mr. Yazdani has not stated anything in his own affidavit about the agreement which would go to prove the effort on ejectment to be in any case mala fide. In fact he has not been able to controvert the allegations of Mst. Zainab Bai and her son Ismail. Mst. Zainab Bai is widow and she is living in the rented accommodation and now her son has started attending Karachi University and other two children have also grown up and thus there are grown up children. One of them is a girl and two are young men. And, therefore, a mother, her grown up daughter and two grown up sons would certainly find it difficult to live in two rooms accommodation at Bhimpura Karachi and hence her personal need was fully established. Consequently I do not find any merit in this appeal which deserves to be dismissed.
10. I do not agree with Mr. Nizamani that the tenancy of the appellant was hit by the expiry of the agreement Exh.
5. The relevant provision in this respect is section 6 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 which does not allow any validity to a tenancy beyond such period as the landlord and tenant had by mutual agreement fixed before or after the commencement of the tenancy but the proviso to the said section makes it clear that the tenancy existing immediately before coming into force of this Ordinance is not affected by the provision of section 6. Nothing has come on the record to show that there was no tenancy existing between the present parties before 21-11-1979 when the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 came into force. In fact second para. Of agreement Exh. 5 shows that the appellant was in occupation of the premises and paying rent at Rs, 1,400 per month to the landlady and, therefore, this tenancy existed immediately before coming into force of this Ordinance and hence section 6 was not attracted to the case of the respondent and, therefore, the cross-objections of the respondent is dismissed. Consequently the appeal as well as cross- objections. Are dismissed. However, the appellant is allowed four months time to vacate the premises provided he continues to pay the rent in accordance with the order of the Rent Controller.