Happell, J.

1. The appellant leased a house from the respondent, and at any rate for a part of each year he used the house as a place of business for the storage and sale of fire works. The house was completely destroyed by fire following on an explosion, and on a suit brought for the recovery of damages by the lessor the lower Courts have awarded him damages to the amount of Rs. 1,000.

2. The principal argument advanced in appeal is that the lower Courts wrongly placed the burden of proof on the appellant. It may be conceded that as a general rule the burden of proof in an action for damages for negligence rests primarily upon the plaintiff. But there are exceptions to this rule; such as cases to which the maxim res ipsa loquitur applies, cases in which the fact of an accident is itself prima facie evidence of negligence, and in which there is a duty cast on the defendant to take special care. A duty to take a special care is cast on the defendant when the things which he keeps are particularly dangerous, such as fire works. It is argued for the appellant that the maxim " res ipsa loquitur " will not apply to this case because it was not proved that the fire broke out in the