1981 PLP 1636 (CLC)

‑‑‑‑ S. 14‑Writ jurisdiction‑Petitioner not taking objection to competency of appeal filed by respondent when his application under S. 14 dismissed by Rent Controller‑Likewise petitioner not challenging order of remand by way of second appeal when appeal allowed by District Judge and case remanded to Rent Controller for recording of evidence and decision on merits‑Order of remand rejecting legal objection regarding application being barred under S. 14, held, attained finality and cannot be permitted to be re-agitat ed even in second appeal much less while invoking writ jurisdic tion‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199. ‑‑‑‑ S. 11‑Res judicata‑Landlady in previous case requiring eject ment of tenant on ground of personal need but issue decided against her‑Subsequent ejectment application on same ground, held, not barred because .requirement for personal need may not have arisen formerly but may arise subsequently‑Decision of previous petition, cannot operate as res- judicata‑‑.Tribunal having jurisdic tion to decide‑Has jurisdiction to decide it rightly or wrongly and a decision cannot be interfered with in revision simply because of its being wrong‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199 and West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959), S.

14. Muhammad Hussain Munir's case P L D 1974 S C 139 ; Nawab Syed Raunaq Ali's case P L D 1973 S C 136 ; Amir Hasaan v. Sheo Bakhsh 11 Cal. 6 (P C) ; Balakrishna v. Vasudeva 44 1 A 261 ; Venkata Giri v. H. R. E Board P L D 1949 P C 31 ; Jaychand v . Kama laksha P L D 1949 P C 114 and Muhammad Hussain v. Sikandar P L D 1974 S C 139 ref. ‑ ‑ S. 13 (3) (a) (i)‑Question of fact‑ Question whether landlord does or does not require certain premises for his bona fide require ment‑Held, in last analysis, becomes a question of fact.‑[Question of fact). Dr. A. R. Khan v. Muhammad I shaque 1972 S C M R 437 ref. (d) West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959)‑ ‑‑‑S. 13 (3) (a) (i)‑‑Question of fact, finding on‑Rent‑ Controller's finding as to landlady's requirement of premises being bona fide based not only on evidence led by landlady but also supported by cross‑examination of solitary witness produced by tenant‑petitioner District Judge concurring with such finding‑High Court, held, does not normally while exercising revisional jurisdiction on civil side interfer with concurrent finding of fact.‑‑[Finding of fact]. Ata Hussain Khan v. Muhammad Rafiq Khan 1979 S C M R 630 ref. (e) West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959)‑‑ ‑‑‑Ss. 14 & 15 read with Punjab Urban Rent Restriction (Amendment) Ordinance (VII of 1980)‑‑Second appeal having abated, matter can not be moved in constitutional jurisdiction‑Fact of another Judge haying admitted S. A. O. to hearing‑No ground for admission of petition, nature of two jurisdictions being quite different from one another‑High Court in writ jurisdiction‑‑Does not enter into disputed questions of fact unless based on no evidence or evidence misunderstood or misread.‑[Abatement]. (f ) West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959)‑ ‑‑ S. 13 (3) (a) (i)‑Ejectment‑Time to vacate premises‑Landlady's family comprising her husband and her children school students taking shelter in a room of friend's quarter but allottee of such quarter dead and occupants pressed to vacate quarters‑Allowing time to tenant, held, would result in prolonging humiliation and agony of landlady's family hence balance of convenience lay in favour of landlady‑respondent ‑ Request for time refused.