KARAM ELAHEE CHAUHAN,J.-Muhammad Shafi (hereinafter called the landlord) filed an application under section 13 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance VI of 1959 (hereinafter called the Ordinance) for ejectment of Allah Rakha (hereinafter called the tenant) from the shop in dispute bearing No. 21/1253, Bazar Pansarian, Sialkot, on the ground 'hat he bona fide required it for his personal use and occupation. The learned Rent Controller rejected the application on 10-11-1976, holding that the bona fide requirement of the landlord had not been established. The landlord filed an appeal which was accepted by the learned Additional District Judge, Sialkot, vide his order dated 7-9-1977, whereby he upset the finding of the learned Rent Controller and held that the bona fide need and requirement of the landlord bad been duly established on record. Consequently he directed the tenant to vacate the premises and hand over its possession to the landlord within three months. The tenant then filed a second appeal being S. A. O. No. 539 of 1977 but without any success as the same was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court on 4-7-1978, who after going through the record confirmed the finding of the learned Additional District Judge that the shop in dispute was required by the landlord in good faith for his personal requirement/need. The tenant has come up in a petition for special leave to appeal to this Court.
2. It was argued by the learned counsel for the tenant/petitioner that the landlord had earlier filed an application for ejectment of his client somewhere in year 1971 which he withdrew on 9-2-1972, as a result of a compromise whereby the rent of the shop was enhanced. He submitted that in the face of the aforesaid a subsequent application which was filed in year 1975 was barred by resjudicata as laid down in section 14 of the Ordinance. The contention has no merit. Section 14 applies to a case which may have been "decided" by the Rent Controller and if the landlord withdrew the previous application on the basis of some private settlement with the,, tenant then that was an arrangement between the landlord and the tenant and not a "decision" of the Rent Controller himself. Learned counsel in, this respect did not refer to any document/judgment or order on the record to substantiate his plea. The point raised therefore, has no substance and is hereby repelled. The next point argued by the learned counsel was that if the subsequent application was not barred by the principle of res judicata then at least earlier circumstance of compromise was a matter which should have beer. Taken into consideration to notice the conduct of the landlord which according to him seriously reflected on the plea of bona fide requirement of the shop in dispute by the landlord, This aspect of the case has duly been attended to by the two Courts below who were of the view that merely because in year 1972 the landlord withdrew his application, as a result of some private settlement with the tenant at that time, it did not mean that the landlord was debarred from doing the business in that shop in year 1975. We find nothing wrong with the aforesaid view because a private settlement made earlier cannot constitute an eternal defect in the landlord so as to debar him fur ever to get the shop for his personal use/requirement subsequently and all that we would like to observe in this respect is that each case will depend on its own facts and circumstances. So far as the present case is concerned nothing has been brought to our notice to show that the landlord did not need the shop for his ownseilf, at the time when be filed the present ejectment application, and the mere fact that earlier he had, to put it in other words, postponed his need, by making some private settlement, it did not mea that the need subsequently could not have arisen. The real test would whether the need is based on "good faith" is a question of fact and finding on this subject could be taken exception to in this Court unless it is show that it suffers from violation of some fundamental legal principle in the matte of appreciation of evidence or omission of evidence or misreading of evidence In the instant case both the Courts below on the subject of "good faith" have given a verdict in favour of the landlord. The learned counsel has net bee able to point out any factual or legal error in the aforesaid finding warranting interference by this Court. The result is that this petition has no merit and is dismissed. Learned counsel requested that his client may be given tom time to vacate the premises. Subject to his continuing to pay the rent, the petitioner is granted four months time to vacate the shop. Order accordingly.