' This first rent appeal under section 21 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, is directed against the order, dated 31st May, 1984 of XVlth Rent Controller, Karachi whereby he has decided that possession of disputed premises be handed over to respondents No. 1 Mst. Shirin Bai within one month.
' Mst. Shirin Bai filed a rent case under section 15 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 on 21st March, 1982 against one Ghulam Haider and the present appellants on the ground of her personal requirement. It is stated in the rent application that she purchased the Shop No. 5 measuring 620 square yards on the ground floor of Ghadiali Building situated on Plot No. 23 S.B.1, Preedy Street facing Empress Market Sadder for the purpose of carrying out the business of chemist and druggists exclusively for her own. It is also mentioned in the application that one Ghulam Haider respondent No. 2 in this appeal is tenant at the rate of Rs.450 per month and runs business of chemist and druggist under the name and style of M/s. Yaqoob and Sons.
' The appellants filed written statement in which they contended that application is not maintainable against them as they are not in possession of the shop in question and furthermore there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the appellants and respondent No.
1. It has further been mentioned that deceased Muhammad Siddique was the original tenant in respect of the above shop and he was ejected on the ground of recostruction of the building by the landlord, therefore, he is entitled to get the possession of the shop after reconstruction. Their case is that on 17-11-1966 deceased Muhammad Siddique applied before the Rent Controller for restoration of the possession under subsection (5)(b) of section 13 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restrictions Ordinance, 1959 and during the pendency of the rent case before the Controller Muhammad Siddique died and his legal heirs were brought on record as applicants. On 18-11-1969 the Controller passed an order in favour of the appellants. Against that order of the Rent Controller the previous landlord preferred an appeal which was also dismissed and by the same judgment the rent appeal of the respondent No. 2 Ghulam Haider was also dismissed. Respondent No. 2 Ghulam Haider filed second appeal No. 187 of 1970 in the High Court and the same was dismissed on 26-10-1970 but against the order Letters Patent Appeal 208 of 1978 was filed in the Supreme Court and the same was dismissed on 14-2-1979. Thereafter execution application was filed before the learned Civil Judge and Rent Controller who dismissed the execution application of the appellants on 17-11-1982, and now matter is pending in the Supreme Court and it is stated that status quo has been ordered in connection with execution application.
' The respondent No. 1 Shirin Bai filed ejectment application under section 15 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 on 25-3-1982. The learned Rent Controller on the pleadings of the parties framed the following issues:-- ' Whether the applicant/landlady requires the shop for her personal use and occupation in good faith?
' The Rent Controller decided this issue in affirmative and ordered the ejectment of the respondent No. 2 Ghulam Haider who filed first rent appeal No. 655 of 1984 the same was dismissed in limine by this Court by an order, dated 27th June, 1984.
' It is relevant to mention that present appellants and Mst. Azizan Begum wife of Muhammad Siddique and Muhammad Rafique son of Muhammad Siddique were parties in the rent application filed by Mst. Shirin Bai but in the present appeal they have not been made party though they are also legal heirs of deceased Muhammad Siddique. They both have not filed appeal against the impugned order of the Rent Controller. The presumption in these circumstances is that they do not dispute the personal bona fide requirement of the landlady.
' I have issued pre-admission notice to the parties because I had already passed an order in the same case on appeal filed by respondent Ghulam Haider. In pursuance of this Court notice M/s. Rashid A. Rizvi and Sabihuddin Ahmed are present and I have heard all the learned counsel. Mr. Badrudduja appearing for the appellants has argued that appellants are entitled to have the possession of the premises. He has also given the entire history of the dispute and stated that presently the matter is pending in the Supreme Court where Shirin Bai respondent No.1 has made an application and their Lordships on her application in C.P.S.L.A.K-206 of 1984 have ordered status quo.
' The present case in my view is independent one, filed by respondent No.
1. This rent application has been filed in 1982 and it gives a separate cause of action to landlady and the Rent Controller has on the evidence of the parties decided rent case independently on the issue of bona fide personal requirement of the respondent No.
1. Moreso the two legal heirs of the deceased Muhammad Siddique viz. Mst. Azizun Begum wife of Muhammad Siddique and Muhammad Rafique have not filed appeal though they were respondents in Rent Case No. 1429 of 1982. The appeal of Ghulam Haider who is in occupation of the premises has been dismissed by this Court in limine, (First Rent Appeal 655 of 1984) and order of the Rent Controller has been maintained. I have been referred to a case of Muzaffar Khan v.
Muhammad Yousaf Khan reported in PLD 1959 SC (Pak) 9 where it has been held by their Lordships that previous decision on specific law point be accepted as binding on subsequent action. Since the decision on the impugned order of the Rent Controller has already been given, the First Rent Appeal 655 of 1984 has been dismissed in limine and plea of personal requirement of respondent No. 1 Shirin Bai has already been accepted. In the circumstances, I also dissmiss this appeal in limine.