MUHAMMAD AHMAD Versus SAKINA BEGUM

ORDER

1. SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.‑ The petitioners are the tenants under orders of ejectment from commercial premises and seek leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, dated 15‑10‑1983 whereby their constitu tional petition challenging the orders of eviction passed against them was dismissed.

2. The landlord, we are told, had moved the first ejectment application against the tenants in 1960 on the ground of default which tailed ultimately on 21‑12‑1965. The second round of litigation was started by the landlord in 1972 on the ground of personal need which too failed in 1979. The third round was initiated by him on 10‑6‑1981 on the ground of the need of one of his sons Waheed. The Rent Controller allowed the application on 31‑3‑1983 and ordered the ejectment of the petitioners. The Additional District Judge maintained this order and the High Court refused to interfere in the constitu tional jurisdiction.

3. The main ground taken up by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that in view of the two earlier rounds of litigation by the same landlord the provisions of section 14 of the (tent Restriction Ordinance should have been applied and the third round should have been barred on principle of res judicata by summarily dismissing the application.

4. With the assistance of the learned counsel for both the parties we have gone through the cause of action prompting the earlier two rounds of litiga tion. We are in no doubt that the first round was on ground of default, the second on the ground of personal need of the landlord and the third round is on the ground of personal need of a particular on of the landlord. The distinction is obvious. The same ground is not covered. The litigation is no repetitious. And the application on the ground of personal need of al particular son was not barred on account of previous litigation.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners, however, submitted that the need of the two sons was in fact examined and dealt with and made the basis in the second round of litigation and it was re‑trial of the same need in the third round of litigation.

6. The petition for ejectment, the issues framed do not bear this out as both the earlier rounds were confined to the need of the landlord and not his sons. We do not find any merit in this petition and leave to appeal is refused, allowing four months period to the petitioners for voluntarily surrendering the possessions.

7. S, Q, Leave refused.