1. ' By this first rent appeal under section 21 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, the order, dated 25-1-1983 of Vth Senior Civil Judge and Rent Controller has been challenged by appellant.
2. ' The Rent Case No.4805/1981 was filed by Muhammad Ashraf landlord on 2-11-1981 on the ground of default in payment of rent and personal requirement. In written statement the appellant stated that he paid the rent till April, 1981 and rent of May, 1981 was tendered but respondent refused to receive the same, therefore, the rent was sent by money order which was also refused,- thereafter, he has been depositing rent regularly in Court in Miscellaneous Rent Case No.2601/ 1981. He- has further stated that no rent receipts were issued by the landlord. Respondent Muhammad Ashraf and his wife Mst. Tahseen Khatoon were examined. On the other hand appellant examined himself and produced one Muhammad Faryad in his support. The rate of rent is also disputed.
3. ' The Rent Controller framed the following two issues:-- (1). Whether the appellant committed default in payment of rent?
4. (2). Whether the premises are required by the respondent in good faith for personal bona fide use?
5. ' Both the issues have been decided against the appellant and RentController directed him to handover vacant possession of the premises within 90 days from the order.
6. ' I have heard Mr. Kamaluddin for the appellant and Mr. Muhammad Afzal for the respondent.
7. Appellant in his evidence before the Rent Controller stated that he is tenant of respondent since March, 1978 and in the beginning rate of rent was Rs.80.- In the second year the rent was increased to Rs.120 and again to Rs.150 per month. He has stated that rent was regularly paid till April, 1981.
8. Thereafter respondent started creating troubles and forced him to vacate the premises and refused to- receive the rent of May, 1981. He tendered the rent by money order which was refused thereafter he is paying regularly in Miscellaneous Rent Application No.2601/1981; It is stated in the evidence by the appellant that from the beginning no rent receipts were issued by the respondent or his wife who used to collect rent from him. He has stated that they were living in Azimpura. On 20th February, 1981 appellant shifted in the other half portion of the disputed premises which was vacated by one Moinuddin Ahmed who was tenant of the respondent from 1978. Respondent Muhammad Ashraf and his wife Mst. Tahsin Khatoon stated that the premises were rented out to the appellant in January, 1978 for 6 months. On the expiry of above period he was approached to hand over the vacant possession but he always gave false promises to vacate the same within few months and rent was paid up to November, :1978 only, subsequently till filing of the rent case he committed default. Mst. Tahsin Khatoon in her evidence stated that she is school teacher in Rehbar-e-Taleem, Government Primary School and appellant is not working with her. She has denied having collected rent from the appellant. She has stated that they require the premises in good faith for her own use and her children who are grown up. The appellant in his evidence produced counterfoils of the receipts of the rent which are not signed by the respondent or his wife.
9. These receipts were not produced with the written statement. These counterfoils can be managed by anybody as these documents are not authenticated in any form. The evidence of Muhammad Faryad is that respondent's wife used to collect rent in the School. His evidence is not convincing.
10. The learned Rent Controller has dealt his evidence at length. Moreover, this fact has been denied by Mst. Tahsin Khatoon. The evidence of Moinuddin cannot be relied upon as he is interested witness and related to the appellant. Appellant even has failed to furnish any -document showing that he paid rent from December, 1981 and onwards till he deposited the amount in Miscellaneous Application. He has committed default. On the point o bona fide requirement. I have no reason to disbelieve the evidence o respondent and his wife. It is for the tenant to show that rent case has been filed with mala fide intention. Every landlord has right t live in their own house. The respondent has got 8 children and this fact has been admitted by Muhammad Faryad. Two rooms are not sufficient for their requirement.
11. ' In view of the above facts and circumstances, I am of the view that Rent Controller has rightly allowed the rent case of the respondent. The appeal having no merit, is dismissed. However, I allow 4 months time to appellant to hand over vacant possession of the premises to the respondent subject to payment of rent. In case he fails to do so the Rent Controller shall issue writ of possession.