HUSAIN ADIL KHATRI, J.-This appeal has been filed assailing order dated 31.12.1991, passed by the learned 2nd Additional Controller of Rent, Clifton Cantt, Karachi, rn Rent Case No. 76 of 1989, filed under section 17 of the Cantonment P. Entt Restriction Act (XI of 1963).
2. The (eviction of the appellant was sought on the ground of default in payment of rent from January 1985 and bonafide requirement of the premises by the landlord for hi5 personal use. The dispute also came up for consideration in regard to quantum of rent.
3. The appellant is a tenant since the days of the respondent's mother who died in 1983. In the application filed by the respondent it is stated that initially the rent was Rs. 25/-, which was increased to Rs. 50/- per month. The appellant in his written statement pleaded that the rent was increased for the reason-^that the appellant had constructed additional room with the permission of respondent's mother and because of the aforesaid additional accommodation, the rent was increased to Rs. 50/- per month. Lateron he handed over the additional room to the landlady and rent was reduced to Rs. 25/- per month. The above allegations have been denied by the respondent.
4. In the above context, it is pertinent to point out that though the appellant has alleged the construction of the additional room but he has not given the details as to when the alleged construction was raised or the possession of the room was delivered by him to the landlady, which led to reversion to the original quantum of rent.
5. Since it is thereas of the appellant that the rent was reduced to Rs. 25/-, the burden of proof was on his shoulders to establish that the rent was reduced as alleged. The respondent has denied the above allegation. There is only word against the word. The appellant having failed to bring satisfactory evidence on record in proof of reduction of rent as alleged by him, it is held that the rent was Rs. 50/- per month.
6. On the ground of-default, the learned Controller found that the appellant has committed default in payment of rent from January 1985. The case of the appellant is that the rent was paid by
7. The appellant alleges that the rent for the months of January and February 1988 was tendered by money order, but neither the money order receipts nor coupons have been produced. With regard to deposit of rent with the learned Rent Controller, it may be observed that the appellant has not produced all the receipts or any report from the Nazarath of the said Court. Even if the rent deposited by the appellant before the Rent Controller is accepted as alleged such deposit was made at the rate of Rs. 25/- per month. It has been found that; the rent was Rs. 50/- per month. The above deposit is, therefore, of no avail to the appellant. The payment of rent means the payment of agreed rent| and not part of it. The ejectment case was filed in September 1989. The computation of rent deposited by the appellant from January 1988 to August 1989 at the rate of Rs. 25/- per month, would cover rent till October 1988. There would will be default in payment of rent from November 1988. No exception therefore cart be taken to the findings of the learned Rent Controller on this issue.
8. Coming to the ground of personal requirement the appellant has pleaded that he was a retired Govt, servant and aged 66 years. Hp was not keeping good health. He requires the premises for his own use. The appellant has pleaded that the respondent has sufficient accommodation in his possession in the same building. In evidence the respondent re-iterated the contents of his application in the rent case. He did not deny that he was in possession of the premises in the same building. He did not deny that the accommodation in his possession is sufficient for his need. He did not assert that the accommodation in his possession was not suitable to his needs. He neither disclosed particulars of the premises in his possession, nor other particulars that may lead to the inference that the premises in his possession in the same building is not suitable to his needs The case of the respondent is based on bald statement that he needs the premises for his personal use. He even suppressed the fact that he was in possession of the premises in the same building.
The above circumstances indicate want of goodfaith.
9. The respondent for his success on the ground of personal requirement, in the circumstances of the case, was bound to disclose that he was in possession of the premises in the same building, that the said premises was not suitable to his needs and ought to have disclosed circumstances as to know the premises in his possession was not suitable to his needs and how that in what manner the premises in possession of the tenant was suitable for his needs. Mere assertions that he was retired government servant or was of old age and ill were not sufficient to establish goodfaith of the requirement. Under S.17(4)(a) the landlord is firstly required to prove his goodfaith and secondly he has to show that he or the member of his family, as the case may be, is not occupying and other residential building suitable for the needs at the time, in the cantonment area concerned or in any area in the vicinity, thereof and thirdly that he or the said member has not vacated such a building in the said area or vicinity without sufficient cause after the commencement of the said Act.
10. All the three conditions must co-exist. If he fails to satisfy any of the said conditions, inspire of counter plea he is not entitled to order of eviction of the tenant from the residential premises in possession of the tenant.
11. The case of the appellant that the respondent is in possession of sufficient accommodation in the same building having remained unrebutted, in failure of assertion on the part of the respondent that the premises in his possession is not suitable for his needs, it is to be inferred that the respondent is in possession of the accommodation sufficient to his needs, in absence of any explanation and particulars., portraying the so called unsuitability of the premises already in his possession. It is therefore held that the respondent has failed to establish the requirement of the premises for his personal use in goodfaith. The findings of the learned Rent Controller on the above issue therefore cannot be sustained and is hereby reversed.
12. In view of the finding that the appellant has defaulted in payment of rent the appeal is dismissed. By consent the appellant is given two months' time to deliver the vacant possession of the premises in question to the respondent.