ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.-Dr. Riazuddin Ahmad who is owner of the shop in dispute filed an application for eviction of his tenant Mehboob Elahi petitioner therefrom, inter alia, on the ground of personal need for the use of his son Khalid Mahmood who wanted to run a chemist's shop therein. The learned Rent Controller allowed the application on the ground of personal need and ordered petitioner's eviction. But on appear the District Judge, set aside the order by holding that the plea of persona need was not bona fide. The Second Appeal filed by the landlord way dismissed.
2. Three months later Dr. Riazuddin Ahmad (respondent-landlord; filed another application for ejectment of Mehboob Elaht petitioner fromthe same shop on the same ground, namely, personal need for use of his son Khalid Mahmood, to enable him to open a chemist's shop therein. The petitioner (tenant) filed an application contending that the second ejectment application was liable to dismissal in view of section 14 of the Rent Restriction Ordinance, which reads as follows :- "14. The Controller shall summarily reject any application under sub--section (2) or under subsection (3) of section 13 which raises sub--stantially the same issues as have been finally decided in a former proceeding under this Ordinance."
This application, however, failed. Feeling aggrieved the petitioner filed a writ petition in the High Court which was dismissed in limine mainly on the ground that it was directed against an interlocutory order passed by the learned Rent Controller and that the petitioner would have his remedy after the final order has been passed. He then filed an I.-C. A. Against the said order which, too, was dismissed. The Rent Controller proceeded with the matter and the following issues were framed on the pleadings of the parties "(1) Whether the petitioner can have gone into the issue of bona fide personal requirement of the petitioner's son Khalid Mahmood in view of the previous decision ?
(2) Whether the petitioner requires the shop in dispute bona fide and in good faith for the use and occupation of his son Khalic Mahmood ?
(3) Relief."
After recording evidence of more or less the same witnesses as in the earlier case the learned Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the petitioner bona fide needed the shop in question for the use of his sot Khalid Mahmood. He, however, did not advert to Issue No. 1. The petitioner's appeal before the District Judge failed. He then filed a writ petition which too was unsuccessful.
Hence the present petition.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the second ejectment application was based precisely on the same ground as the earlier one. He conceded that successive ejectment applications can always be filed on a new ground as and when it became available or even of the same ground, e.g., personal need, by the same person if a new element which was not present earlier, became available subsequently. He, however pointed out in the present case no such new element was mentioned an( as such the ejectment petition was liable to dismissal and he also contended that in any case, it was the duty of the learned Rent Controller to consider Issue No. 1 and give a decision thereon.
4. Leave is granted to consider the above-mentioned question. Security in the sum of Rs. 2,500.
Status quo to be maintained in the meanwhile. The case to be fixed at an early date.