ABDUL HAMEED DOGAR, J.--- Petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the order, dated 19-4-2006 of a learned Judge in Chambers of the High Court of Sindh, Karachi, whereby Constitution Petition No,538 of 2005 filed by him was dismissed.
2. Briefly, stated the facts of the petition are that respondent Mst. Siddique Begum, with a view to seek ejectment of the petitioner from the two shops situated on Plot No,R.S.-2, Block No,2 Commercial Area, Shah Faisal Colony, Karachi, filed an application under section 15 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 before the VIth Rent Controller, Karachi East on the ground that the disputed property was required for her son, namely Muhammad Shahid for personal bona fide need. She further alleged that her son was an employee of National Bank of Pakistan but he was relieved from his service under golden shake hand scheme by the Bank on 16-2-2002 and, therefore, the premises were needed for him to carry out some business for the livelihood of her and her three unmarried daughters. Out of the pleadings of the parties, the Rent Controller framed the following issues:--
(i) Whether the applicant requires the shops in good faith for her own use and for the use of her son, namely Muhammad Shahid for the purpose of business in the shops in dispute?
(ii) What should the order be?
3. Parties in support of their respective stands, led their evidence. After hearing both the parties, VIth Rent Controller, Karachi East vide judgment, dated 27-3-2004 allowed the application of respondent and directed the petitioner to vacate the disputed premises within 119 days. Petitioner filed appeal before 1st Additional District Judge, Karachi-East which was dismissed vide judgment, dated 28-9-2005. Feeling aggrieved, petitioner challenged the same before the learned High Court of Sindh, Karachi, by filing Constitution Petition No,538 of 2005 which met with the same fate. Hence this petition.
4. We have heard Mr. Ghulam Qadir Jatoi, learned Advocate Supreme Court for petitioner and Mr. Saleem Iqbal, learned Advocate Supreme Court for respondent No,1 and have gone through the record and the proceedings of the case in minute particulars.
5. Mr. Ghulam Qadir Jatoi, learned counsel for the petitioner mainly contended that the landlady has in fact two shops, out of which one shop was rented out to the petitioner who has been regularly paying the rent of the same. As regards the contention that the shop in question was required for personal bona fide use of her son who was not retired from National Bank of Pakistan but was relieved from his service under "golden shake hand scheme" by the Bank on 16-2-2002, he contends that the aid contention has not been proved inasmuch as respondent No,1 has not disclosed the nature of the business to be run in the said shops.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No,1 vehemently opposed the contentions of learned counsel for petitioner and supported the judgments of the two Courts below as well as the learned High Court. He contended that in fact the said two shops are consolidated into one shop which fact has been mentioned in the ejectment application: Even in the judgment in question, this fact is also so recorded. According to him, respondent No,1 has fully established her case beyond any shadow of doubt and there are concurrent findings of two Courts below as well as the learned High Court.
7. All the three Courts have recorded concurrent findings on the question of fact, viz. That the disputed shops are needed by respondent to earn her own livelihood and to run business therein through her son who was in service of National Bank of Pakistan and stands retired under the "Golden Hand Shake Scheme" and is jobless. There being no evidence against such plea and evidence, the concurrent findings of fact recorded by Courts below wherein it has been established beyond any shadow of doubt that shop in question is required for personal bona fide need of respondent's son who was retired from the National Bank and wanted to run business therein. The learned Judge in the High Court, having discussed the issue in the light of evidence of the parties, held that the concurrent findings of fact recorded by two Courts below were well founded and we fully share this view. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to convince us that either the findings of fact arrived at by the Court of first instance and the Appellate Court, were result of misreading or non-reading of evidence or that the High Court while affirming the same has committed any illegality calling for interference by this Court.
8. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order, which is accordingly maintained. Resultantly, petition is dismissed and leave to appeal refused.
However, one month time is allowed to the petitioner to vacate the premises in dispute. If the petitioner fails to hand over the vacant possession of the premises in dispute to the landlady after one month, writ of possession would be issued by the Rent Controller without notice.