' This appeal is directed against the order of Rent Controller whereby he rejected the application filed by the appellants for the eviction of the respondents from the premises in dispute. The facts in brief are that an application under section 15 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 was filed by the appellants against the respondents on the grounds that the respondents have impaired the material value and utility of the premises, that they have been using the premises for the purpose other than for which it had been let out, and that the appellants require the premises for their personal use. It was contended that the premises were taken on rent by Messrs Standard Bank Limited for the purpose of operating their Rampart Row Banking Branch therein. The bank then wrote a letter for making certain additions and alterations in the premises. The permission was granted. The bank demolished the existing amenities of the tenants of the first floor but the bank failed to construct the R.C.C. roof and to restore the amenities on the first floor. The said premises have been left in a state of utter disrepair endangering and impairing the safety and security of the building. The respondents have failed to complete the work of addition and alteration. It has thus impaired materially The value and utility of the premises. It was further stated that the applicant No. 2 who is doing the business of printers under the name of Arco Printers and also the business of exports and imports in two rented premises in Saeed Mansion is reasonably and in good faith in need of these premises for the said business as the said premises are ideally situated and have sufficient accommodation to house both the said concerns. The application was contested by the respondents. It was stated that they had completed the renovation work of the premises in 1978, but in 1980 the roof fell down and they started constructing the roof and the work was in progress.
The following issues were framed by the learned Rent Controller:--
(1) Whether the opponents have not completed alleged construction which has impaired materially the value and the utility of the premises?
(2) Whether the opponents have been using the premises other than for which it has been let out?
(3) Whether the applicants require the premises in case for their personal use?
(4) What should the order be?"
' However, the issues were decided against the appellants.
2. The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the premises in dispute are required by the appellants for their personal use. Appellant No. 2 Sultan Ali filed his affidavit in the Court of Rent Controller wherein he has stated that the premises in question are required by him for his personal business.
In their application the appellants have stated that the applicant No. 2 who is doing his business of printers in two rented premises is reasonably and in good faith needs these premises for the said business as the said premises are ideally situated and have sufficient accommodation to house both concerns but in his affidavit Sultan Ali has stated that the applicants have no other suitable premises for their own business nor have they vacated any such premises in this rating area. In cross-examination the applicant No. 2 has stated that he has got his personal business A.R. Co.
Printers/ARCO export and that he is doing his business since 1965 and in all nine persons are employed by him. The total area in occupation of the appellants is 500 square feet. (In the application it has been stated that the premises in dispute are required by the appellants as the said premises are ideally situated and have sufficient accommodation to house both the said concerns). At the trial the appellants have improved their case by saying that the space is not enough for expansion of business but the particulars of expansion have not been given by the appellants. It is also not the case of the appellants that they wanted to vacate the premises in their occupation. They are running their business quite satisfactorily and that is why they want to expand it. There is no allegation that the landlord of the appellants is compelling them to vacate the premises in their occupation. Under the provisions of law a landlord has to establish that he requires the premises in good faith for his own occupation. The burden is upon the landlord to prove his good faith and good faith is to be spelt out from the circumstances. Mere word of the landlord that he requires premises for his use is not sufficient. In the instant case the circum - stances go against the appellants. The appellant No. 2 is already doing his business in a rented premises. Of course it is the choice of the landlord to start his business in his own building but he has to show through positive evidence as to why he wants to shift his business from the building already in his occupation?.
2. I do not see that Rent Controller has made departure from the accepted principles in dismissing the application moved by the appellants. Learned counsel for the appellants has referred to 1983 CLC 148 and 1983 CLC 1535 in support of his contention that the applicant is doing business in a rented premises but this fact alone is not sufficient to accept the application.
' As a result of the above discussions the appeal stands dismissed with no order as to costs.