' Malik Iftikhar Ahmad landlord filed a petition for the ejectment of Inayat Ali and Javaid Alam respondents from Shop No, 189, Block 10, Rail Bazar, Jhang Saddar on the grounds of default, damage and personal need on 2-3-1974. He gave up the plea of personal need being premature and sought ejectment on the ground of default only. The learned Rent Controller by order dated 15- 6-1976 accepted the application and ordered the ejectment of the respondents (tenants). Feeling aggrieved they filed an appeal which was accepted by the learned Additional District Judge, Jhang on 3-9-1976. The petitioner filed a S.A.O. In the High Court which was dismissed on 17-12-1976.
2. Subsequently, second round of litigation started and the petitioner again filed an eviction application against Inayat Ali respondent on the ground of personal need only. According to him he wanted the shop for the use and occupation of his son. The respondents contested the application but it was accepted by the learned Rent Controller, Jhang on 18-3-1979. The respondents preferred an appeal which was disposed of in terms of compromise, on 1-4-1980. A new tenancy was created between the parties on a monthly rent of Rs,500 for a period of 11 months.
After the expiry of lease period the respondents did not vacate the disputed shop whereupon the petitioner filed a fresh ejectment petition on the ground of personal need. He stated that he required the shop for his own bona fide use and occupation as he had retired from Government service and had no source of income or possessed any other shop in the same urban area. The respondents contested the same. By order dated 30-4-1985 the learned Rent Controller granted the petition and ordered ejectment of the respondents. The respondents preferred an appeal which was accepted on 28-9-1985 by the learned District Judge, Jhang and in consequence the ejectment petition was dismissed. Hence this writ petition.
3. It is contended that the learned District Judge had drawn a wrong inference from the creation of fresh tenancy between the parties on the basis of a compromise and erred in upsetting the well- reasoned finding of the learned Rent Controller about the bona fide personal need of the petitioner.
It is further stated that the impugned judgment of the learned District Judge is based on conjectures. He was not justified to hold that since the petitioner was an agriculturist he did not need the shop for starting business.
4. Conversely learned counsel for the respondents states that the petitioner had filed the ejectment petition for mala fide reasons and that there was no condition before the appellate Court at the time of compromise that the fresh tenancy was for a limited period and further that the petitioner does not require the property for his personal use in good faith. Additionally he contends that the ejectment petition was barred by the principle of res judicata.
5. According to the learned Rent Controller since the last litigation between the parties had ended in a compromise, the controversy in question was never finally settled. In the previous ejectment petition the point in issue was the need of the petitioner's son but in the present proceedings he had sought ejectment for his own personal use and occupation after having retired from service.
Though he had taken up the ground of personal need in his first application filed on 2-3-1974 but the same was withdrawn by him and was not the subject-matter of consideration in the order dated 15-6-1976. The present application had been filed on a new cause of action i,e. The retirement of the petitioner without any business, calling or profession. There was another feature that after the promise in the Court on 1-4-1985 a new contract of tenancy (Exh. P.2) was executed.
In this contract Javaid Alam respondent No,2 who was never in the picture was also joined. In the new contract the duration of tenancy as stipulated was for 11 months only whereafter the respondents were obliged to hand over possession of the shop to the petitioner without any objection whatsoever.
' The petitioner had appeared in the witness-box and stated that he had retired as Superintendent from the Canal Department and that he was jobless and had no other business and required the shop in good faith for his own use. The learned District Judge was also of the view that since the new tenancy had been created between the parties the principle of res judicata was not attracted.
C But he took a strong note of the withdrawal of the ejectment proceedings after enhancement of rent from Rs,160 to Rs,500 per mensem. According to him if he was in bona fide need of the shop in dispute he would not have entered into a compromise with Inayat Ali respondent. The petitioner's plea is that he executed the rent deed Exh. P.2 in favour of the respondents on their commitment that they would vacate the shop after a year and that he had done so to avoid further litigation.
According to him the respondents had always offered to increase the rent but he did not accept their offer.
' From the material on record I am satisfied that the petitioner requires the shop in dispute in good faith for his own use and that he is not occupying any other shop in the same urban area suitable for his needs. In this view of the matter, the learned Rent Controller had rightly granted his application and ordered the ejectment of the respondents. The learned District Judge was not justified to disturb his finding. The reasons which prevailed with him in upsetting the order of the learned Rent Controller are not convincing. The mere fact that the petitioner had entered into a compromise with the respondents for a limited period will not militate against the plea of his bona fide personal need. Accordingly, I accept the petition, declare the order of the learned District Judge to be without any lawful authority and of no legal effect and restore the order of the learned Rent Controller and allow two months time to the respondents to vacate the premises in dispute.
Parties shall bear their own costs.