1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.-The petitioners have called in question the order dated 21st May, 1979 of the Lahore High Court whereby their 2nd appeal in a rent matter was dismissed in limine.
2. ' The respondents moved for the ejectment of the petitioners from a property which was the subject-matter of transfer under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958. The petitioners were served with notice under section 30 of the Act on 29th July 1974 ; but before the expiry of 3 months statutory period allowed to the tenants petitioners, the respondents filed the ejectment petition on 10th September, 1974. It was pleaded before the learned Rent Controller as also in the appellate Courts that the cause of action not having matured the petition was incompetent on the day it was Idled and the learned Rent Controller had no jurisdiction to proceed with the trial thereof. This plea was rejected by the High Court-reliance was placed on Mst.
3. Amina Begum and others v. Mehar Ghulam Dastgir (1) and Manzoor 4hmad Khan v. Syed Maqsood Ali (2).
4. ' Learned counsel has repeated the same contention as was raised before the High Court. He has tried to distinguish this case by pointing out that the facts involved are different. He has also relied upon Abdul Rashid v. Jamal Din and others (3) and Muhammad Shafi v. Abdul Hayee (4).
5. We do not agree with the learned counsel. It was held in the case of Mst. Amina Begum and others that the forums acting under the Rent Restriction law were not, in exercise of discretion vested in them, precluded to take note of events taking place during the course of the proceedings after the institution of an ejectment petition so as "to suitably mould the relief on the basis of the altered circumstances in order to avoid multiplicity of litigation and shorten the proceedings". It was also observed that compelling the applicant-landlord to withdraw ejectment petition which had already been tried, merely on the technical ground of the cause of action not having matured at the time it was filed so that it may be filed again, would not advance the interest of justice as "results on merits were not likely to be different. Learned counsel has not satisfied us that if the ejectment petition was withdrawn and refiled, the results on merits would have been different. The cases of Abdur Rashid and Muhammad Shafi cited by the learned counsel, in view of the dictum in Mst. Amina Begum's case are of no help to the petitioners. There is no force in the argument advanced by the learned counsel in support of this petition. It fails and is accordingly dismissed.
(1) PLD 1978 SC 220 (2) PLD 1975 Lah, 1521
(3) PLD 1967 Pesh. 256 (4) PLD 1965 Lah. 681