1989 PLP 1315 (SCMR)

Date of hearing: 6th March, 1989. GHULAM MUJADDID, J.‑‑Asghar Ali, landlord sought ejectment of his tenant Muhammad Ishfaque from Shop No.6/754 situated in Tehsil Bazar, Sialkot. The sole ground was bona fide personal need. On 15‑9‑1983 the Rent Controller dismissed the eviction application. This order was not challenged by the landlord. Later on 7‑11‑1983 Asghar Ali filed a fresh application. In this application again the ground was bona fide personal need but this time it was on a different ground than the earlier one. Muhammad Ishfaque contested this application. He raised the plea that it was hit by section 14 of the Rent Restriction Ordinance. The Rent Controller accepted this plea. The ejectment application was accordingly dismissed summarily on 28‑5‑1984. Against the order of the Rent Controller, Asghar Ali filed an appeal before the Additional District Judge, Sialkot, which was also dismissed vide order, dated 19‑1‑1985. Asghar Ali, respondent, then invoked the Constitutional jurisdiction of the Lahore High Court. There he succeeded to the extent that the learned High Court remanded the matter to the. Rent Controller with a direction to decide the second eviction application on merits in accordance with law. The petitioner aggrieved by the judgment of the High Court, dated 21‑5‑88, now seeks leave to appeal against the aforesaid judgment. We have heard Mr. Shahid Hussain Kadri, Advocate, the learned counsel for the petitioner. He has contended that the first application by the landlord having been dismissed on 15‑9‑83 how was it possible that within a short span of 54 days the circumstances so changed that the personal need of the landlord became bona fide. It was next contended that in any case the second application was not maintainable under section 14 of the Ordinance. The learned counsel wanted us to reappraise the evidence. Although, we are not supposed to do that, nevertheless, we to the interest of justice did look into the evidence. We are of the view that the contentions raised by the learned counsel have no force. No period of limitation or time Emit can be prescribed for change of circumstances nor for personal need. Circumstances may change abruptly or may not change at all. It depends upon the facts of each case. A reasonable explanation has been A given for changed circumstances which the High Court took notice of. Similarly, we do not think that the petitioner can avail of section 14 of the Ordinance. A second application was filed because of a fresh cause of action. In any case, the matter has been remanded the petitioner as such will get a fair chance to fight out his case before the Rent Controller. Not a fit case for leave to appeal. Dismissed. AA./M‑792/S Leave refused.