' ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.-After hearing the learned counsel for the parties at length we have converted the petition into appeal and dispose it of as such.
2. The appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court dated 4-11-1984, dismissing Muhammad Mohsin's (petitioner's) writ petition in a rent matter.
3. The facts giving rise to the appeal are, briefly, that Mst. Sabiran Bi, the mother of Muhammad Mohsin appellant owned the shop in dispute bearing No, B-II-8-S-37, situated in Gali Langrianwali Gujranwala City. It had been let out on rent to Muhammad Ibrahim respondent No, 2.
' In December, 1974, Mst. Sabiran Bi, filed an ejectment petition against Muhammad Ibrahim seeking his eviction from the above said shop on the ground that it was needed to enable her son Muhammad Mohsin to run his business therein. The application was contested and the learned Rent Controller dismissed the same. On appeal, however, it was remanded to him. The Rent Controller by his order dated 27-10-1980, accepted the ejectment application and ordered tenant's eviction. The latter then preferred an appeal which was accepted by the Additional District Judge on the ground that it had been brought on the record that Muhammad Azam, father of the appellant owned a shop in Bazar Sarafan in a part whereof the appellant had also installed a saw machine for- cutting gold. On this the learned Additional District Judge held that since the person for whose sake Mst. Sabiran Bi had filed the ejectment application was in occupation of another shop (belonging to his father Muhammad Azam), where he was running his business, the application could not succeed in view of clause (b) of section 13(3)(a)(ii).
4. About 4 years later, Mst. Sabiran transferred the ownership of the shop in question by way of gift in favour of her son Muhammad Mohsin vide Gift Deed dated 11-4-1982.
5. Muhammad Mohsin then himself filed an ejectment application on 5-6-1982 for the eviction of Muhammad Ibrahim on the ground that he (Muhammad Mohsin appellant) needed the shop for his personal requirement.
' The application was contested by Muhammad Ibrahim tenant, as one of the objections taken by him was that the application was barred by section 14 of the Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, inasmuch as the earlier application filed by Mst. Sabiran Bi with respect to the same shop on the same ground as taken by the present application, had been dismissed.
5. The learned Rent Controller after recording the evidence and hearing the parties rejected the plea that the present application was barred by section 14 of the Ordinance and allowed the same, ordering respondent's eviction. Muhammad Ibrahim respondent thereupon filed an appeal which was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge who upheld the order of eviction.
Muhammad Ibrahim then filed a writ petition before the High Court, mainly on the ground that the ejectment application was barred by the provisions of section 14. The High Court allowed the petition and set aside the aforementioned orders of the learned Rent Controller and the learned Additional District Judge.
6. Muhammad Mohsin appellant then filed the present petition which, as stated earlier, has been converted into appeal.
7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and gone through the record with their help. It is now well settled that a second ejectment application is not barred by section 14 if a new cause of action has arisen or the circumstances alter in such a manner as to justify the filing of another application for ejectment.
In the present case the first application was admittedly filed by Mst. Sabiran Bibi (the landlady) for the need of her son, while in the present case it is the landlord himself who has filed the application for his own personal need. The fact that his father owned a shop in Bazar Sarafan. Gujranwala, does not bar him from seeking the eviction of a tenant from a shop situated in an altogether different street, i,e, Gali Langrianwali. Because clause (b) of section 13(3) (a) (ii) of the Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance reads as Follows :- "13(3)(a)-A landlord may apply to the Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession-
(ii) in the case of a non-residential building or a scheduled or rented land, if - (a)
(b) he or his said child is not occupying in the same urban area in which such building is situated for the purpose of his business any other such building or rented land, as the case may be, suitable for his needs at the time ; "and
(c) . . . . .
(Note : Underlining is ours)
Admittedly the shop in question is not situated in the same area as the shop occupied by appellant's father which, as stated earlier, is situated in an altogether different Bazar, i,e, Bazar Sarafan. Again 4 years had elapsed by the time the second application was filed and that by itself, is sufficient to indicate that by then the appellant had grown up sufficiently to need a separate premises to run his own business independently.
8. The word 'occupying' as occurring in clause (b) reproduced above, in the context, means occupying in his own right, either as an owner or as a tenant, and not occupying by the courtesy of some one else, although h may be his own father.
9. Considering the facts of this case, we are of the view that the circumstances in which the second application was filed were substantially different from those in which the first application was filed by appellant's' mother. As such it was not hit by the provisions of section 14 of the Ordinance.
Moreover, we feel that the need of Muhammad Mobsin appellant is genuine.
10. As a result we accept the appeal ; set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court and restore the orders of eviction passed by the learned Rent Controller on 9-6-1983, and upheld by the learned Additional District Judge, Gujranwala, vide order dated 21-7-1983. No order as to costs.