1. ' This first rent appeal is directed against the order of eviction, dated 15-1-1985 passed by the VIlth Senior Civil Judge/Rent Controller, Karachi, whereby he allowed the eviction application and directed the appellant to hand over the vacant possession of the premises to the respondent within three months from the date of the order.
2. ' The fact leading to the filing of the above appeal are that the respondent is owner of property.
3. No.Ly-13/197, D.D. Chaudhary Road, Karachi and the appellant is his tenant in respect of Shop No.1 at the monthly rent of Rs.55. The respondent filed eviction application No.4630 of 1981 on the ground of personal requirement and unauthorised construction. The appellant resisted the eviction application.
4. ' The appellant filed his own affidavit-in-evidence in respect of the eviction application. In rebuttal the appellant filed his affidavit-inevidence. They were cross-examintd by the learned counsel for the respective parties.
5. ' The learned Rent Controller on the basis of the evidence produced by the parties and taking into consideration the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, decided issue No.1 in the affirmative and issue No.2 in the negative and decided eviction application on the ground of personal requirement, vide order, dated 15-1-1985.
6. ' The appellant abovenamed being aggrieved by the above order, dated 15-1-1985 of VIIIth Seni6r Civil Judge/Rent Controller, Karachi, has preferred the first rent appeal on the grounds mentioned in the memo of appeal.
7. ' Mr. S.M. Afzal the learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the respondent failed to prove the bona fide requirement of the shop premises.
8. ' On the other hand Mr. Muhammad Hussain Adil Khatri the learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the respondent has proved the personal requirement and the eviction order is in accordance with the evidence on the record.
9. I have taken into consideration the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the evidence produced by the parties on record and have also perused the impugned order.
10. ' Reverting to the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the respondent failed to prove personal bona fide requirement of the shop premises. It is pertinent to note that the respondent averred in para. 2 of the eviction application that "the applicant while purchasing he had considered the shop in possession of opponent suitable for carrying on business and in that view of the matter had purchased this property. The applicant is without any business and wants to 'start the business of Mats, Ropes, Dusters, Brushes, Grooms and other items and as such the applicant requires the shop in possession of the opponent for his personal use and occupation for purpose".
11. ' The appellant filed written statement therein stated that "the applicant has a mala fide intention and he wants to eject the opponent on one ground or the other as the opponent declined to oblige him. The shop is not required by the applicant for his personal bona fide use as alleged in the application". The respondent filed his counteraffidavit-in-evidence and reiterated the same facts.
12. He also stated that he was without any business. The respondent denied the suggestion in cross- examination that the had asked the appellant to increase the rent. He voluntarily stated that he had asked appellant to vacate the premises as he needed it for his personal requirement. The respondent denied the suggestion that he did not require the shop. The respondent admitted in his cross-examination that the business for which he wanted the shop had never done by him.
13. ' As against the above evidence the appellant in his affidavit-inevidence stated that the respondent filed eviction application with a mala fide motive and the shop was not required by the respondent for his personal bona fide use. The appellant also stated that he refused to double the rent as demanded by the respondent. It is pertinent to note that this plea was not suggested to the respondent even though he was cross-examined admitted that he himself went to the respondent and he started depositing rent in Court.
14. ' It is apparent that the averment in the eviction application about personal requirement of the respondent for his use has been fully supported in respondent's deposition and nothing has been brought in cross-examination which could show that the claim of personal use for himself is to be false or is based on wrong statement.
15. ' It is well-settled legal position that the assertion of the responden on oath as to requirement of the shop premises for his personal use is to be accepted if consistent with his averment in his application an not states in cross-examination or disproved in rebuttal. The evidenc of the respondent in the instant case fulfilled the standard laid dow by the Supreme Courts.
16. ' After going through the record with the assistance of learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the impugned order of the learned Rent Controller it seems that the learned Rent Controller has rightly granted eviction application on the ground of personal requirement .
17. ' I, therefore, find no justification in the above appeal and it is, therefore, dismissed by short order, dated 11-5-1986, but I granted time to vacate and hand over possession of the shop in dispute upto 31st December, 1986, on the condition that the appellant shall continue to deposit rent in terms of the Rent Controller order. However, in case he will make default the respondent shall be entitled to file eviction application before the expiry of the above period. In the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs. The above are the reasons for the short order.