' Appellant Mazhar All filed an application for eviction of the respondent, who is his tenant from the premises in dispute on the ground of default in payment of rent for the months of January 1979 to March, 1979 and that he had made alterations in the shop without his permission and that the appellant required the premises for his personal bona fide use. The tenancy was admitted by the respondent in the written statement but other averments were denied. The following issues were framed by the Rent Controller:- "(1). Whether the opponent is a willful defaulter?
(2). Whether the applicant requires the disputed premises for his own personal bona fide use?
(3). Whether the opponent has made alteration in the disputed premises? If so its effect?
(4). What should the order be?
' However, all the issues were decided against the appellant.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant has not pressed the ground of default. He has confined his arguments to the bona fide requirement of the appellant, and not seriously challenged the finding of the Rent controller on issue No, 3 also. The learned counsel has stated that the applicant requires the premises for his own use and, therefore, the bonding of the Rent Controller on this score is erroneous. In the application the appellant has stated that the applicant is in urgent and of the shop for his own personal bona fide use. At the trial the applicant's son and attorney in his evidence has stated that the applicant ,sires the shop for his own use for display and sale of his own nice products as the applicant has no suitable place for use as lay center and sales depot for his products. The learned Rent roller has stated that the appellant has not produced any evidence rove that the applicant is dealing in chemical products and he the shop for the same. This finding has not been challenged by learned counsel for the appellant and there is no evidence to admission on the part of the appellant of the relationship of that landlord and tenant in para. 1 of his above written statement reprodcued hereinabove. It has not been proved before the Rent Controller that factually the appellant had paid Rs,8,000 in terms of the above compromise, nor any case was filed by the appellant to enforce the above alleged compromise of 1972.
6. As regards the question of personal requirement nothing has been brought on record to prove that factually the respondent No, 1 obtained possession of any other premises during the pendency of the above rent case. In the cross-examination of the respondent it was suggested that he owned some other premises which suggestion was denied by the respondent.
7. Reverting to the question of default, it seems that the finding of the learned Rent Controller is in accordance with law. The appellant failed to prove the payment of the default period. It may be pertinent to point out that even in this appeal the appellant failed to deposit rent since 16-3-1982, though according to Mr. Abul Khair learned counsel for the appellant this was due to the fact that the appellant had gone to Punjab to attend some personal urgent work.
' There is no merit in the above appeal and, therefore, it is dismissed with no order as to costs.
' However, I allow six months time to the appellant from today on the condition that he shall deposit all the arrears of rent within one month from today and shall deposit rent for the above period month to month in terms of the Rent Controller's Order. In case of default of either of the above terms, the appellant shall be liable to be ejected before the expiry of the above period of six months, namely, either on non-depositing of the arrears within one month or committing default of the current rent. The learned counsel for the appellant shall forward a photostat copy of the deposit slip to the learned counsel for the respondent so that it may be known that first part of the order is complied with, failing which it will be presumed that the appellant has not complied with the above order and the respondent shall be at liberty to file an execution application.