REHMAT SHAH and 2 others vs AMIR GUL and 3 others

ORDER

1. ' FAZAL ILAHI KHAN, J.---Leave to appeal has been sought for against the judgment of the Peshawar High Court, dated 12-10-1993 in Writ Petition No, 1241 of 1992.

2. ' Ejectment of the petitioner was sought for from the shop in question by the respondents on the grounds of default in payment of rent, subletting and personal requirement which was contested by the petitioners amongst others on the plea that previously on the same ground the ejectment petition of the landlady had been dismissed thrice by the Controller of Rent and those orders were maintained in appeal. After framing of issues and recording evidence of the parties the learned Rent Controller decided the issue of personal requirement in favour of the respondent. The objection raised that fresh ejectment petition was barred under section 14 of the West Pakistan Rent Restriction Ordinance, was repelled on the ground that the respondent had a fresh cause action for bringing the present petition for ejectment. Accordingly;, the learned Rent Controller ordered the petitioner's' ejectment from the said shop vide his judgment dated 13-2-1992. The petitioners' appeal against the same was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge on 13- 12-1992 confirming the aforementioned finding. Their Writ Petition was also dismissed by the learned High Court vide the judgment against which leave to appeal is prayed for.

3. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners and perusal of the record we find no force in contention of the learned counsel that the petition for ejectment was barred under section 14 of the West Pakistan Rent Restriction Ordinance. Admittedly the previous petitions were brought by landlady and the last petition filed by the respondent was withdrawn with permission to Fie a fresh one on a fresh cause of action. It is not denied that respondent No,2 has since been retired and is jobless and he has got 5 sons and there is no evidence on the record that they are employed or that they have been in occupation of any other shop in the same premises. Such being the case the finding of the two forums of competent jurisdiction that the respondent required the said shop for personal need, was not assailable in writ jurisdiction before the High Court. We, therefore, find no infirmity in the judgment of the learned High Court refusing to interfere with the concurrent findings in Constitutional jurisdiction. This petition is, therefore, dismissed. Stay order dated 3-11-1993 stands vacated.