' SYED DEEDAR HUSSAIN SHAH, J.---Petitioners seek leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court of Sindh, Karachi, dated 23-6-2004, passed in C.P. No,331 of 2003.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that Pervaiz Malik, predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners and Muhammad Haneef, husband of respondent No,1, entered into a lease agreement dated 28-5-1976, whereby the latter had rented out two Shops bearing No,138-A, Block No,2, PECHS, Karachi, to the former on the terms and, conditions appearing therein. Thereafter, Parvaiz Malik obtained another shop on lease from Muhammad Haneef in the same premises vide lease agreement executed between the parties in October, 1983. These three shops are now in the occupation of the petitioners being the legal heirs of late Parvaiz Malik, as tenants of respondent No,1, who is the widow of late Muhammad Haneef. Respondent No,1 had filed Rent Case No,390 of 1995 against the petitioners for their eviction from the shops in question on the ground of personal need, which was allowed. Subsequently F.R.A. No,506 of 2001 filed by the petitioners against such order was dismissed. Feeling aggrieved, petitioners filed a petition in the High Court, which too was dismissed vide judgment impugned herein. Hence, this petition.
3. Mr. K.A. Wahab, learned counsel for the petitioners, inter alia, contended that the learned High Court did not consider the case in its proper perspective and the respondent landlady was not able to prove her bona fide personal need for the demised premises. In support of his contentions learned counsel has relied on Mrs. Shahnoor Fazal v. Ghulam Akbar Mangi 1987 SCM R 2051.
4. Conversely, Mr. Ismail Memon, learned Advocate Supreme Court for the respondent No,1 vehemently opposed the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioners and submitted that the learned High Court had considered the case in its proper perspective and the case-law cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners is not applicable in the case in hand.
5. We have considered the contentions of learned counsel for the parties and very minutely perused the material available. There are concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Courts below viz. The ejectment application filed by the landlady, which was allowed. The appellate forum dismissed the appeal against the aforesaid ejectment order. Subsequently, the learned High Court also dismissed the petition vide impugned judgment herein. The material available on record does not support the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the landlady had not proved the bona fide need of the demised premises.
' In this context, it would be pertinent to refer here para-5 of the application under section 15 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, which reads as under:-- "5. That the applicant is a widow having a son namely Rehan, the applicant have no other means of income except the rents which is now insufficient for her and her son to cope-up with the cost of living which is reaching sky-high. The applicant therefore decided and now starting her own business specially of the ladies garments and boutique with the help of her son so that apart from learning he will be accustomed and get training of business which will also help him in his future life, for this purpose this applicant is in dire need of the shops premises so that the applicant can start her business in the said shops and use the same for her own personal and bona fide use."
6. The evidence of the landlady was in line with the application filed by the respondent for ejectment of the petitioners/tenants. There are concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Courts below. The case-law cited by learned counsel for the petitioners is quite different and is not applicable to the case in hand. The landlady is a widow and she had proved bona fide personal need for herself and for her son, which fact was not rebutted during the evidence recorded by the learned trial Court.
7. For what has been discussed above, we are of the considered opinion that the impugned judgment is based on valid and sound reasons and is entirely in consonance with the law laid down by this Court. Neither there is misreading, non-reading of material evidence, misconstruction of facts and law, nor it involves any substantial legal question of public importance warranting interference by this Court.
8. Resultantly, the petition being devoid of any force is dismissed along with the listed application and leave to appeal refused.