' This is an appeal against the order dated 31-7-1982 passed by the learned IXth Senior Civil Judge and Rent Controller, Karachi, in Rent Case No,352/80. The brief facts leading to the filing of the above appeal are that the respondent filed the above rent application on the ground of personal requirement. The above application was resisted by the respondent. The learned Rent Controller on the basis of the pleadings of the parties framed the following 3 issues:-
(1) Whether the present case is barred by the principle of resjudicat?
(2) Whether the applicant requires the premises in good faith for his own occupation and use and for the occupation and use of his children?
(3) What should the order be?
' The respondent in support of the rent application filed his affidavit in evidence dated 23-4-1980.
Whereas appellant No,2 filed his affidavit on his own behalf and on behalf of the other appellants.
The Rent Controller after hearing the parties allowed the rent application on the ground of personal requirement. The appellant being aggrieved by the above order has filed the present appeal.
2. Mr.Muneer-ur-Rehman, learned counsel for the appellants has urged that the respondent had failed to make out a case of personal requirement, and, therefore, the learned Rent Controller was not justified in allowing the rent application on the above ground. On the other hand Mr. Shaikh Hamid Hassan, learned counsel for the respondent has contended that since the respondent was living in a rented premises, the learned Rent Controller was justified in granting the rent application on the basis of the evidence on record.
3. It may be observed that the respondent in his cross-examination admitted the fact that he had filed Rent Case No,1914/76 inter alia on the ground of personal requirement, which case was compromised on 3rd January, 1979 on which date the respondent had withdrawn his above case. It may be advantageous to reproduce the contents of the application and the order passed thereon, which reads as follows:- "APPLICATION FOR WITHDRAWAL OF ABOVE RENT CASE.
' In the above case it is submitted that the parties named above have compromised the matter in order to avoid the litigations.
' It is, therefore, requested that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to allow the applicant to withdraw the instant case from the Court, and in the interest of justice. Sd/-M.A.Kazi, ' Advocate for the applicant. Karachi, Dated 3-1-1979.
' Case is dismissed as withdrawn. Sd/-Nabi Sher Junejo, 2nd Rent Controller, Karachi."
' It has been 'proved that prior to the withdrawal of the above case the rent of the house in question was Rs,190 p.m., but upon the compromise the rent was increased to Rs,350 p.m. It may also be stated that the respondent filed another case namely, Rent Case No,1468 of 1979, in March, 1979 inter alia on the ground of personal requirement. It was averred in the above case that the previous case was withdrawn by him as he was assured by the appellants that they would advance a friendly loan of Rs,50,000 for the construction of the first floor of the house in question for self- occupation of the respondent. However, the second rent case was dismissed in default. After that the appellants filed the 3rd rent case on 15-1-1980, the question, therefore, arises as to whether the respondent was able to make out a case for personal ground as admittedly he had withdrawn his first case on 3-1-1979, which was also inter alia on the ground of personal requirement on the basis of the compromise. In other words, whether the respondent was able to show that the circumstances had changed between the period commencing from 3-1-1979 and 15-1-1980, which had necessitated the filing of the above rent case. It may be advantageous to reproduce hereinbelow paras. 2 to 5 of the respondent's affidavit in evidence, which read as follows:- "2.--That the applicant requires the aforesaid premises bona fide and in good faith for his own use and occupation as the present accommodation namely house No,65 Nai Basti Delhi Colony which consist of only one room bath-room kitchen combined latrine on a monthly rent of Rs,60 p.m.
Despite insufficient and inadequate for our needs. I attach hereto a photo stat copy of Identity Card and marked as Annexure "A".
3.--That I had filed Rent Case No,1944/76 on the undertaking given by the opponents and their father that late Mr. S.H. Bafakiya I had withdrawn Case No, 1468/79 but the same was unfortunately dismissed for default on 4-7-1979.
5.--That I 'submit that both the aforesaid rent cases were not decided on merits and that the principles resjudication are not directed in this case. I vehemently deny that the present case has been filed by me with any mala fide intention. It is further denied that I have any intention to cause any annoyance to the opponent/tenants or to have any wrongful gain for my sons."
' It may be noticed that the respondent had not disclosed the number of his family nor he has given any particular as to the under taking given by the appellants late father S.H.Bafaqia, on the basis of which he had withdrawn his Rent Case No, 1914/76. I am not inclined to agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent that the appellants' father had assured the respondent that he would advance a friendly loan of Rs,50,000. The compromise document dated which is on non judicial paper of Rs,40) dated 30th November, 1978 does not contain any such stipulation as to the making of advance of Rs,50,000 as a friendly loan by the appellants' father.
This document also does not contain any stipulation as to the enhancement of rent from Rs,190 to Rs,350. However, the factum of above increase stands proved even by the averment contained in the rent application and also by the respondent's affidavit in evidence as admittedly the rent was Rs,190 prior to the withdrawal of the Rent Case No,1914/76 on 3-1-1979.
4. I am, therefore, of the view that the respondent had failed to make out a case of bona fide personal requirement. The factums of withdrawal of the first rent case on 3-1-1979 and increase of rent from Rs,190 to Rs,350 negate the bona fide. Furthermore, the contents of para. 2 of the respondents affidavit in evidence as to the personal requirement is vague as it does not disclose even the number of the members of family, for whose benefit the respondent needed the house. I am of the view that if a landlord withdraws a previous rent case filed on the ground of personal requirement upon getting rent increased, he cannot file a fresh rent case on the above ground within a period of one year unless he shows that on account of change in the situation, fresh cause of action has accrued to him. In other words, he should prove that the circumstances have changed since the withdrawal of the previous case necessitating the filing of a fresh case.
5. For the aforesaid reasons the appeal is allowed with no order as to costs. The order under appeal is set aside and the respondent's application stands dismissed.