' The petitioner retired as Station Master in 1972. He applied for ejectment of Karim-ud-Din respondent No.1 from the shop which is under the tenancy of the respondent for the last 15 years, on ground of personal need. His application was dismissed on 9-2-1978 when the learned Rent Controller Kharian found that the petitioner owned eight shops. The petitioner brought a fresh ejectment application in 1981. In the meantime the circumstances underwent a change and the petitioner was left with only two shops. The remaining shops had been gifted away by the petitioner excepting one which was sold. This application again was dismissed by the learned Rent Controller on 1-4-1982 when he found that section 14 of the Rent Restriction Ordinance was a bar to the fresh proceedings. He however did come to the conclusion in answer to issue No.1 that the petitioner had the personal need of occupying the shop in question. The petitioner challenged the orders in appeal. The orders of the trial Court were confirmed by the learned Additional District Judge on 12-4-1983. The petitioner has challenged the orders of the two Courts by way of a constitutional petition.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the case law in support of his contention that with the change in circumstances a fresh personal need can always arise and that the previous proceedings need not bar the fresh proceedings on that account. There can be no quarrel with this proposition. The question of personal need is never static and the change in circumstances can give a fresh cause of action. But a distinction has to be made whether the change in circumstances is self-created. In the present case it is clear that a number of shops have been transferred by the petitioner by way of gifts, and a Court will not refuse to take note of such a situation.
3. The learned Additional District Judge also came to the conclusion that the findings on issue No.1 regarding the personal need have attained finality on account of the fact that no cross-objections were filed by the tenant/respondent. This is not a correct view of the law. The case of Ali Muhammad v. Nazir etc., PLD 1980 Lah. 52 provides an answer to this question and in fact the learned counsel for the petitioner concedes the proposition that no cross-objections were necessary in this case. I, however, need not remit this case for fresh decision on this question as in my opinion the change in circumstances which is self-created will not remove the bar created by section 14 of the Rent Restriction Ordinance. Since this is exactly what has been done by the petitioner in this case his application for ejectment was rightly dismissed by the Courts below.' find no merit in this writ petition. It is dismissed but there shall be no order as to costs.