1. Hearing the learned counsel, it is evient that there has been a previous litigation between the parties and in, the face of a decision on merits as regard such litigation a question of res judicata legitimately arose. In circumstances where there is a divergence of opinion between the findings of the Controller and the High Court, not on the question of res judicata but on merits, this is a case where the following questions are posed for examination:--
(i) Whether the present set of proceedings were hit by the res judicata?
(ii) Weather the projected need of the landlady was bona fide?
2. ' However, there are some equities which are to be considered before leave is granted. It is established on the record that the petitioner-tenant is paying a monthly rent of Rs,2,100 only since the year 1984 and there has been no revision of such rent in consonance with the applicable provisions of law. This is clearly inequitous particularly if leave is granted and the matter lingers on for some time in this Court. We have, therefore, obtained the consent of the petitioner that henceforth and up to the decision of this matter the petitioner would deposit rents at the rate of Rs,25,000 per month which the respondent landlady would be free to withdraw. In the event of default in the deposit of such rent the same incidents would apply as in relation to the earlier order in these very proceedings under section 16(1) of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance. Needless to say that irrespective of the decision of the matter, one way or the other, this would remain the rate of rent between the parties unless one or the other of them goes for fixation of fair rent and another figure is substituted there.
3. ' Leave is granted in terms. The, parties would be free to apply for early hearing in accordance with rules. Stay granted as well.