1. DORAB PATEL, J. The dispute in this petition for leave relates to a shop owned by the respondents.
2. The respondent purchased the shop in 1971 and he immediately called upon the petitioner, who .Was the tenant of the shop to attorn to him and to execute a rent note on mutually agreed terms.
3. Therefore, according to learned counsel, a dispute began between the parties about the quantum of rent. The petitioner has offered rent at Rs. 50 per month and sent money order for that amount for the rent of March, 1970, which was refused, therefore; according to learned counsel, the petitioner deposited rent for sometime in the Court of the Rent Controller. Mean--while, the Excise and Taxation Department had raised the assessment for the shop to Rs.200 and the respondent demanded rent at that rate from the ist of July, 1972 and also informed the petitioner that he wanted this shop for his son who was without employment and would, therefore, run a business in this shop.
4. The petitioner contested his eviction and in the background of his dispute with the respondent about the quantum of rent, he submitted that the respon--dent did not require the shop in good faith for his son and that the eviction application had been filed only because he wanted more rent. The Rent Controller agreed with the contentions of the petitioner and dismissed the respondent's eviction application.
5. The respondent challaned the dismissal of his eviction application in an appeal in the District Court, which was allowed by and Additional District Judge, Gujranwala on 10-11-1976, therefore, the appellant filed a second appeal in the Lahore High Court which was dismissed by a learned Judge of the Lahore High Court on 13-6-1977. Hence this petition for leave.
6. Learned counsel submitted that the respondent had failed to prove the bans fides of his requirement and dilated at length on the evidence produced by the petitioner in support of his contention that the respondent had tried to obtain higher rent from him. It is unnecessary to refer to the lengthy arguments of the learned counsel on this aspect of the case, because at best they furnished evidence in support of the petitioner's claim that the respon--dent had failed to prove that he required the shop in good faith. But, a against this evidence, is the fact that the respondent's son is unemployed and there is nothing unreasonable or improbable in his desire to keep himself occupied by running a business in the shop now in possession of the petitioner, therefore, it is a case on which two views were possible and the first Appeal at Court held in the exercise of its discretion that the respondent had proved hi good faith. This is a finding on a question of fact which was upheld in second appeal by the High Court, therefore, no case has been made out for the grant of special leave.
7. Learned counsel then attempted to argue that the Appellate Courts had misread the evidence. We are unable to accept this submission and we hold that the question was entirely of the appreciation of evidence. Learned counsel then pointed out that the respondent owned other shops, but he did not dispute the fact that none of the shops owned by the respondent were vacant or that the respondent had leased out any shop that had fallen vacant. On the other hand, the evidence proves that in order to start his business the respondent's son had been compelled to take a lease of a shop. In these circumstances, we have no hesitation in holding that the respondent has proved the bona fides of his claim. But, in any event, as there is evidence in support of the concurrent finding in the respondent---s favour by the two appellate Courts no case has been made out for the grant of special leave.
8. The petition is without merit and is dismissed, but we give the petitioner two months' tune to hand over vacant possession of the demised premises to the respondent provided he continues to pay the monthly rent.