' Muhammad Younas respondent claiming to be the landlord filed ejectment petition against his tenant Muhammad Hussain writ petitioner, on 7-2-1991 which was dismissed by the Rent Controller, Sialkot on 7-9-1991 but his appeal was accepted by the learned Additional District Judge on 15-9- 1992. The same has been challenged in the present writ petition on the grounds of mala fides and constructive res judicata.
2. The precise allegation made in the petition and at the Bar by the learned counsel are that Muhammad Younas had filed a previous ejectment petition on the groud of default in the payment of rent on 29-7-1989. The same was dismissed by the learned Rent Controller on 2-7-1990. His appeal was accepted on 21-11-1990 and ejectment petition again dismissed by learned trial Judge on 27-1-1991. Within 10 days of that i,e, 7-2-1991 the present ejectment petition was filed. The ground of default was repeated but withdrawn on 11-4-1991.
3. Now admittedly the rent application has been granted for reconstruction and bona fide personal use. Argument asserted is that these grounds were available to Muhammad Younas when he previously filed the ejectment petition and so the present petition was barred by constructive res judicata. Learned counsel for the respondent/landlord argues that there is no question of res judicata in the present case inasmuch as the site plan for reconstruction had been got sanctioned later on and the need for personal use can arise any time. If not pressed three years back, it would not be at bar to press it in the present ejectment petition.
4. Even evidence has been referred to. From the statements of Abdul Majeed, Muhammad Hussain and Muhammad Yousaf, the attorney of the landlord (A.Ws. 1, 2 and 3), it is clear that the landlord has two wives, with one he lives in Dubai and other with four children is putting up in one room of the house where other 5 brothers and two sisters of landlord with large number of children are also residing. If in such circumstances having battered his economic position by working in Dubai the landlord wants to keep a separate house for his family and that too after reconstruction, that cannot be said that mala fides is involved. Rather from the statement of the respondent/petitioner it appears that he is on a long course of litigation. As R.W.2, he claims that he had spent about 22/23 throusand of rupees on constructing a room in the house which belonged to his son-in-law Azeem and Azeem sold it to the present landlord without making any payment to him. He came with his real intention by stating in cross-examination that the landlord cannot get the house vacated for 40 years as his two sons had still to file suits.
5. For what has been discussed above, no ground for interference in writ jursidiction. Dismisse.