TANVIR AHMAD KHAN J:- This constitutional petition is directed against the judgment dated 21.7.1985 passed by the learned Addl. Distt Judge, Lahore, whereby he had accepted the appeal of respondent No. 1 against the judgment dated 15.7.1984 of the learned Rent Controller, Lahore and ordered the eviction of the petitioner from the disputed premises.
The facts briefly are that the respondent No. 1 filed an ejectment application against the petitioner on 10.6.1981 on the ground of default in the payment of rent, sub-letting a portion of the tenanted premises and bona i.e requirement of the property. The petitioner controverted the stance. The following issues were framed:
1. Whether the petitioner is barred u/s 14 of the Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance? OPR
2. Whether the petitioner is estopped by his words and conduct from filing the petition? OPR.
3. Whether the petition is false, frivolous and mala fide? If so, whether the respondent is entitled to compensatory costs? If so, to what extent? OPR.
4. Whether the respondents are defaulters in payment of monthly rent? OPA.
5. Whether the respondents have sub-It a portion of the premises in dispute? If so, its effect? OPA.
6. Whether the petitioner bona i.e requires the premises in dispute for his personal use and occupation? OPA.
7. Relief.
The learned Rent Controller vide his order dated 15.7.1984 dismissed this application. Aggrieved with the same the respondent No. 1 filed an appeal which was accepted by the learned Addl. Distt.
Judge, Lahore vide his order dated 21.7.1985 who ordered the eviction of the petitioner. Hence this constitutional petition.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has firstly argued that respondent No. 1 earlier filed an ejectment petition against the petitioner on 18.6.1980 on identical grounds. But the same was withdrawn on 7.6.1981 without seeking any permission to i.e fresh application. It is argued that the second ejectment application on the same grounds was barred in view of section 14 of the Rent Restriction Ordinance. He has also argued that though provisions of Order 23 Rule 1 CPC are not strictly applicable to the proceedings under the Rent Restriction Ordinance but the same are followed and hence the instant application on these principles would not be maintainable. It is next argued that the bona i.e requirement of the disputed premises has not been established on record.
I have considered the contentions minutely. The first ground of the learned counsel For the petitioner that earlier an identical ejectment application was filed which was subsequently withdrawn without seeking permission to i.e fresh application is devoid of any force. Section 14 provides as under: "The Controller shall summarily reject any application under subsection (2) or under sub-section
(3) of section 13 which raises substantially the same issues as have been finally decided in a former proceeding under this Ordinance."
4. The reading of this section makes it clear that an ejectment application on an issue would only be barred if an application on the same issue had earlier been decided on merits between the same parties. In this case the petitioner has failed to point out any earlier application of the respondent No. 1 qua the petitioner which has already been decided on merits on the ground of bona i.e personal requirement. Reliance in this regard is placed upon Allah Rakha Vs. Muhammad Shafi (1978 SGMR 437) and Sh. Muhammad Ibrahim Kohli Vs. Addl. Distt. Judge etc (NLR 1988 Civil 434).
5. The other ground that the ejectment petition shall be barred in view of the provisions of Order 23 Rule 1 CPC is devoid of any force. Punjab Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959 is a special law. It has got its own special procedure. The Ordinance through section 16 has conferred limited powers upon the Rent Controller respecting the summoning of the witnesses and compelling the production of evidence as are vested in a Court under the Code of Civil Procedure. This limited applicability of Code of Civil Procedure would demonstrate that the Rent Controller is not a Court in the strict sense and as such the question of applicability of the provisions of Order 23 Rule 1 would not arise. It is true that the Rent Controller in the absence of any provisions in the matter of procedure can follow equitable principle, contained in the Code of Civil Procedure. But that does not mean that he would follow the stringent provisions of Order 23 Rule 1 CPC inspire of the presence of section 14 of Punjab Rent Restriction. Ordinance which has regulated his power in case of successive applications. It has clearly been provided in section 14 of the Ordinance that the Rent Controller would only be competent to reject a subsequent application provided an earlier application substantially raising the same issue had been decided between the parties. This being the situation principle of Order 23 Rule 1 as argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner would not be attracted to the facts of this case.
6. As far as the genuine requirement of the premises is concerned, that has been established through testimony produced by the respondent No. 1. It has been unequivocally stated by the respondent that he needs the disputed property for his bona i.e personal requirement. To substantiate the same he has deposed that he needed the property to look after his grown-up daughters who are studying at Lahore. He has further stated that he will get her daughters admitted in hostel while he himself would stay on the upper flat of the property in dispute. He has also stated in categorical terms that he wanted to do the business of Arhat in the disputed shop. It has also come on record that respondent No. 1 had earlier dealt with in the business of Arhat 8/9 years earlier. His bona i.e requirement cannot be brushed aside simply on the ground that he wanted to have the services of a Munshi in the business of Arhat which he intended to start in the disputed shop. The question whether or not the premises is needed by the landlord for his bona i.e requirement is purely a question of fact which has rightly been deduced by the learned First Appellate Court from the evidence of respondent No. 1 in unequivocal terms. This aspect of his bona i.e requirement has further been fully corroborated by the other two witnesses, namely, Ch. Ghulam Hassan PW1 and Malik Masoom Ali PW2. The petitioner through his evidence has failed to rebut the bona i.e requirement of the respondent for his personal use. Reliance in this respect is placed upon the case of Bashir Ahmad Vs. Addl. Distt. Judge, Gujrat and two others (1985 CLC 2485), wherein it has been held that a solitary statement of a witness can be made the basis of eviction on the ground of personal requirement provided it riggs true. For what has been stated above, I see no reason to interfere in my constitutional jurisdiction in the impugned order and accordingly dismiss this writ petition with no order as to costs.