' This is an appeal against the order dated 27-4-1982 passed by the learned Rent Controller, Sukkur, in R.A.No.122/80.
' The brief facts leading to the filing of the above appeal are that the present respondent filed Rent Application No.122/80, on the ground of personal requirement and reconstruction. The above application was resisted by the above appellant and inter alia it was pleaded that both the above grounds were previously urged and that the same were rejected by the learned I-Additional District Judge, on 16-1-1980, in Rent Appeal No.20/77. The learned Rent Controller on the basis of the pleadings of the parties framed the following four issues:-
(1) Whether application is not maintainable?
(2) Whether premises is required by the applicant for his bona fide personal use ?
(3) Whether applicant requires the premises for reconstruction?
(4) What should the order be ?.
' The respondent examined himself and one Hyder Ali. On the other hand appellant examined himself and one Ranjhoo. The learned Rent Controller by his above order, dated 27-4-1982, allowed the above application on both the above grounds. The appellant being aggrieved by the above order has filed the present appeal.
2. In support of the above appeal Mr.Abdul Ghani Shaikh, learned counsel for the appellant has urged as follows:-
(i) That since the personal ground was disbelieved on 16-1-1980 by the learned Additional District Judge, Sukkur, in appeal No.20/77, arising out of the earlier Rent Application, namely, R.A. No.2/72, the learned Rent Controller, could not have allowed above ground on the basis of the present rent application which was filed on 20-4-1980 i.e. hardly after about three months.
(ii) That since the approved plan produced by the respondent was dated 31-3-1969 i.e. of a date prior to the date of filing of the previous rent application, the learned Rent Controller, could not have granted the present rent application on the above ground.
On the other hand Mr.Riaz Ahmad, the learned counsel for the respondent has urged as follows:-
(i) That in the earlier rent application the personal requirement of the respondent was pleaded, whereas in the present rent applica tion the requirement of the respondent's son was urged and, therefore, the learned Rent Controller, was justified in allowing the respondent's above application.
(ii) That since the ground of reconstruction was rejected for want of production of approved plan, it was open to the respondent to file a fresh application on the same grounds.
3. It may be appropriate to take up the above second contention first. The plan which has been produced by the respondent is dated 30-3-1969, whereas the first rent application was filed in 1972 (R.A.No.2/72). The Rent Controller had disallowed the above rent application on both the above grounds i.e. personal requirement and reconstruction. It may be pertinent to quote herein para. No.6 of the judgment, dated 16-1-1980,, passed by the learned I-Additional District Judge, in Rent Appeal No.20/77 which deals with the question of reconstruction which reads as follows:- "(6) The other ground taken in the rent case is that the appellant wants to reconstruct the shop.
There is only one word of the attorney of the appellant that they need the shop for re-construc tion.
No plan has been produced. On the other hand the opponent has specifically mentioned in the written statement that he has been maintaining the shop properly and has spent good amount for its repairs. The respondent has deposed that the condition of the shop is good. It was the duty of the appellant to have brought the evidence but no evidence has been brought by the appellant on this ground. The finding of the learned Rent Controller on this issue is proper."
' A perusal of the above-quoted para. of the judgment indicates that first appellate Court in the above appeal arising out of the above first rent application rejected the ground of reconstruction for the reason that the respondent had failed to prove the same. The above finding had acquired finality as no appeal was filed against the above judgment. In my view, the respondent could not have filed a fresh rent application on the same ground unless he could have shown that fresh cause of action accrued after the passing of the above judgment on 10-1-1980 by the learned Additional District Judge. If the respondent would have obtained the approval of the plan after the dismissal of the above appeal, he would have a fresh cause of action for filing of an application for reconstruction but since the approval of the plan was obtained on 30-3-1969, it cannot be urged that the respondent had a fresh cause of action on 20-4-1980 when he filed the present rent A application. If a landlord fails to prove a ground in an earlier rent application off, he cannot file a fresh rent application on the same ground by bringing some additional evidence, which was in his possession at the time of adjudication of the first rent application in order to maintain a fresh application a landlord will have to prove that a fresh cause of action accrued to him after the dismissal of his previous rent application. If I were to take different view, it will result in miscarriage of justice as a tenant will be vexed again and again on the same ground.
4. Adverting to the ground of personal requirement, it may be stated that this ground was also disbelieved in the earlier rent applica tion. However, it has been contended by Mr.Riaz Ahmad as observed hereinabove that in the previous rent application the ground urged was the personal requirement of the respondent whereas in the present rent application the respondent has canvassed personal requirement, of his son. In support of his above submission, he has invited to the statement of the respondent to the effect that after the decision of first rent application, the relation between the respondent's wife and his son's wife have become strained. Apart from the fact that the subject-matter is a shop and not a house base words of the respondent cannot create a fresh ground, which was rejected by the Rent Controller as well as by the first appellate Court as late as on 16-1-1980 whereas the present application was filed on 20-4-1980 i.e. after about three months. In the background of the above previous litigation, the respondent was expected to bring on record, some evidence, which would inspire confidence. The finding arrived at on the ground of personal requirement cannot be sustained on the basis of evidence on record.
5. I, therefore, allow the above appeal with no order as to costs, the order of the Rent Controller under appeal is set aside and the respondents' rent application shall stand dismissed.