' The respondent had filed application under section 13 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 for ejectment of the appellant from the premises on the second floor of the house bearing No 89/H/2 Khalid Bin Waleed Road. In the application it was pleaded that by an agreement, dated 23-11.1969 the appellant was inducted as tenant in respect of the second floor premises on a monthly rent of Rs, 164 payable in advance on the 15th of each calendar month. The respondent previously filed R. C. No, 2139/72 on the ground of wilful default, personal requirement and unauthorised conversion of the premises from commercial to residential use. This application was allowed by the Controller on the ground of default in payment of rent. However, on the other two grounds respondent's plea was not accepted. The appellant filed an appeal which was allowed and the respondent filed Second Appeal No 293/76 in the High Court which was pending at the time when the second ejectment application was filed. Now it is stated that the appeal has been dismissed. In the previous application the premises in dispute was required for the residence of the respondent's family members and their parents. In the subsequent application it was pleaded that now the premises is required by respondent No, 2 for his use and occupation as for want of accommodation his marriage is with held. It was also stated in the application that the respondent No, 2 has now completed his education and obtained B. Sc. Engineering (Mechanical)
Degree and "he wants to stay there independently according to his status in life." The other ground in the application was that appellant was running commercial business of dress making and has thus converted the user from residential to commercial without prior written consent of the respondent.
' The appellant filed written statement and pleaded that the ground of personal requirement pleaded in the earlier application was similar to the one mentioned in the present application, and therefore, the order passed by the Controller earlier will operate as res judicata. It was further stated that the application is mala fide and not maintainable. It was denied that the premises is bona fide required by the respondents. The premises is an unauthorised construction with asbestos sheets covering consisting of two rooms on the second floor of the building. It was pleaded that the ground and first floor of the building are in occupation of the applicant and each floor consists of three bed-rooms and drawing and dining room. The conversion as alleged by the respondent was also denied. The learned Controller on 8.5-1979 framed the following issues :-
(1) Whether the applicant requires the premises in question for his personal bona fide use ?
(2) What should the order be ?
' It seems that taking into consideration the provisions of section 14 of the Ordinance he thought it proper to frame issue No, 1 only ignoring the second ground of conversion of premises to commercial use.
' The parties examined their witnesses and the Controller by the impugned order allowed the ejectment application holding that the premises is required for the bona fide and personal use of the respondent No, 2.
' Mr. Q. M. Rashidi, the learned counsel for the applicant has contended that the ground set up by the appellant is not maintainable as an earlier application on similar grounds of personal use had been rejected an appeal.
' Mr. Kbalilur Rebman, the learned counsel for the respondent has contended that no doubt the application is on the personal requirement of the respondent, the facts are completely different and the cause of action for this personal requirement has arisen afterwards. From the pleadings of the parties it seems that the premise is required for the personal use of the respondent No,
2. This cannot be denied by the learned counsel for the respondent. In the first application, the respondents had applied for ejectment inter alia on the ground that it is required for the use of their family members and parents. It is possible that at one point of time a family may not be requiring a certain premises, but after passage of time they may require it, or the nature of requirement may also change. In the present case it is required for the need of respondent No, 2 only who was at that time a minor and receiving education. With the passage of time he has grown and completed his education, and therefore, the personal requirement pleaded in the present application is completely different from the earlier application. In these circumstances a new cause of action has arisen in favour of the respondents and the application on the ground of personal use and occupation of the respondent No, 2 is not barred by res judicata.
' The question for consideration is whether the respondents have been able to establish the bona fide requirement of the respondent No,
2. It has to be noted that in these proceedings it is the bona fide requirement of the respondent No, 2 which has to be considered and not the requirement of the family members. From the evidence it is clear that the respondents are in occupation of the first and second floor of the premises. There seems to be some controversy about the accommodation available to the respondents as they have stated that they have got three rooms on the first floor and on second floor each. However, in this regard the appellant had produced a certified copy of the statement of the respondent's father acting as their attorney in the previous case. He had stated that on each floor there are three rooms besides drawing and dining room.
Therefore it is clear that each floor consists of three living rooms and one drawing and dining room.
Now it is to be seen how many persons are residing in this house. The respondent No, 1 has stated that his wife, and three daughters, his parents and three unmarried sisters are residing in the house. Therefore, in all about 11 persons including respondent No, 2 are residing in a house which consists of 6 living rooms and two drawing and dining rooms. It seems that the respondent No, I alongwith his wife and daughters is residing on the first floor while his father with his three daughters is residing on the ground floor. There seems to be sufficient accommodation for all these persons including the respondent No,
2. The learned counsel for the respondents contended that the respondents have three married sisters who from time to time visit them and for their stay some accommodation is naturally required. No doubt they may be visiting but it does not mean that a separate room is to be allocated for their stay. They can be accommodated either with the respondent No, 1 who is residing on the first floor and has only three daughters and a wife on the ground floor.
' The need of the respondent No, 2 as stated in the application as well as in the evidence is that he has completed his education and wants to live separately according to his status. The respondent No, 1 is well-placed in life having sufficiently high position as a Quality Control Manager in a pharmaceutical firm and, therefore, considering all these facts the respondent No, 2 is also entitled to a separate accommodation of status. If this is the need of the respondent No, 2, then it has to be considered whether it can be satisfied by acquiring the disputed premises. The disputed premises consists of two rooms on the second floor which is an unauthorised construction. These two rooms are covered with asbestos sheets and have improvised amenities. A man of .The status of the respondents cannot be expected to live in a temporarily shedded house having improvised amenities. This is confirmed by the statement of the respondent No, 2 who has stated that after obtaining the possession from the appellant he would apply to the relevant authorities for permission to reconstruct it. This clearly shows the intention of the respondents is to get the appellant evicted and then to apply to the authorities for approval of plan for re-construction on the second floor, because, it is only after reconstruction that it will be possible for respondent No, 2 to stay over there. Therefore, in effect the main object of the respondent is to reconstruct the house.
This admission on the part of the respondent No, 2 effects the bona fide of the respondents. The accommodation in possession of the respondents is sufficient for a comfortable living of the respondent No,
2. The respondents have also failed to establish their bona fide and good faith. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.