1983 PLP 769 (CLC)

Mumlazuddin Ahmed v. Mst. Sultana Begum P L D 1981 Kar. 329 rel. Muhammad Asar Hussain for Petitioner. AJMAL MIAN, J.‑This writ petition is directed against the order dated 26‑7‑1982 passed by learned V11 Rent Controller, Karachi, in Rent Case No. 2847/81. The brief facts leading to the filing of the above petition are that respondent No. 2's husband Muhammad Usman Qureshi (now deceased) filed Rent Case No. 975/78 on the ground of personal requirement. During the pendency of the above rent case, respondent No. 2 husband expired and, therefore, respondent No. 2 filed a new ease 'under section 14 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, on the ground of becoming a widow,. The present petitioner filed objections to the second application inter alia on the ground that in view of the first rent application, the second rent application was not competent and prayed that the above point be decided as preliminary issue. This plea was rejected, the present petitioner filed Writ Petition No. D‑1148/81. This petition was dismissed in limine by a Division Bench, of this Court by an order dated 14‑1‑1982. However, in the above dismissal order, an observation was made to the effect that there was no bar in law from determining the preliminary issue before recording any evidence. After the dismissal of the above writ petition, the learned Rent, Controller framed following 3 preliminary issues. "Issue No. 1‑Whether the ejectment application is not maintainable under section 14 of Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 ? Issue No. 2.‑Whether the ejectment application is not maintainable in law for non‑joinder of necessary parties ? Issue No. 3.‑What should the order be ?"

2. Mr. Muhammad Asar Hussain, learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that the impugned order is illegal as the Rent Controller illegally has held that the second rent application was competent in spite of the pendency of the first rent application for ejectment on the ground personal requirement. The above contention is devoid of any force. I may be pointed out that the aforesaid first rent case was filed by respondent; No. 2's husband in 1978 on the ground of personal requirement. During the pendency of the above case, the respondent No. 2's husband expired and, here fore, a fresh cause of action accrued to respondent No. 2 to apply under section 14 on the ground of becoming widow. This ground was not available when the first rent application was filed. It has been held by this Court that a second rent application under section 14 on the ground of fresh cause of action is competent and is not barred. Reference may be made to the case of Mumtauddin Ahmed v. Mst. Sultana Begum (I).1 which was upheld by the Supreme Court in Civil Petition of Special Leave Appeal No. 34/81 decided on 18‑2‑1982. The view found favour with learned Rent Controller seems to be in consonance with law. Even otherwise, the impugned order cannot be said to be without jurisdiction in excess of jurisdiction and, therefore, does not call for any interference be this Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction. The petition is, therefore, dismissed in limine. M. Y. H. Petition dismissed. (1) P L D 1981 Kar. 329