1. ' HAMOODUR REHMAN, C. J.-This is a petition for special leave to appeal from the judgment and order of a learned Single Judge of the ahore High Court in a second appeal arising out of an ejectment proceeding.
2. ' The respondent herein filed an application for the ejectment of the petitioner from a shop room at Chishtian which had been rented out the year 1963, on the grounds of bona fide personal requirement, recon traction of the shop and the default of the petitioner.
3. ' The Rent Controller found that there was no default but held that the landlord bona fide required the premises for his own use and occupy section and for the purpose of reconstruction of the shop.
4. Hence ejectment was allowed on these grounds, An appeal from this order failed before the District Judge, Bahawalpur. In second appeal, the High Court refused to interfere. The petitioner now seeks special leave to appeal.
5. ' It is contended on his behalf that the whole application was mal fide because an earlier application for ejectment on the ground of default alone had been dismissed on the 16th May 1972, yet the present petition for ejectment was filed on the 11th November 1972, fraudulently adding two other grounds.
6. ' This fact by itself does not establish mala fides nor does the fact that the grounds on which ejectment was now sought had not been included in the earlier petition.
7. ' All the three Courts below have, after taking into consideration the evidence, come to the conclusion that the premises were genuinely required by the landlord. Indeed, the learned Judge in the High Court is of the view that there is no ground for interference with the concurrent findings of the Courts below as the evidence is practically one-sided. The landlord's evidence stands unrequited.
8. The contention that since these grounds were not taken in the first application for ejectment it must be held that the landlord did not require the premises for his own use is fallacious, because, the requirement may well have arisen subsequently. In any event since the present requirement is based on the evidence on the record, the question as to whether a similar ground was available earlier or not cannot be raised at this stage. It should have been raised at the trial stage if it was intended to raise it as a plea in bar to the proceedings.
9. ' We think that the High Court has rightly refused to interfere. This petition has no merits and is, accordingly dismissed.