' KHILJI ARIF HUSSAIN, J.---This petition, for leave to appeal, has been filed by Ferozuddin and another, petitioners, under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, against the order dated 22-12-2009 passed by learned High Court of Sindh, at Karachi, whereby, Constitution Petition No,187 of 2008, was dismissed and the petitioner was directed to vacate the premises in question as the same was required by respondent No,2 for personal bona fide need.
2. Brief facts relevant to decide this petition are that the respondent/landlord filed an ejectment application in January, 2002 on the ground for personal bona fide need of the premises in respect of ground floor, situated at, 124-U Block-2, Tariq Road, P.E.C.H.S, Karachi, for his son, residing in U.S.A who was jobless, to put him in business at the shop in question.
3. After hearing the parties and recording the evidence, the learned Rent Controller dismissed the ejectment application vide its order dated 17-12-2004. The respondent No,2 i,e, Syed Aley Murtaza Rizvi, aggrieved by the said order, filed R.F.A. No,13 of 2005 before the Court of Additional District Judge, Karachi. The learned Additional District Judge, Karachi vide his judgment dated 19-3-2008, set aside the order dated 17-12-2004 passed by the Rent Controller and the petitioner was directed to hand over the peaceful vacant possession of the shop in question on the ground of personal need.
4. The petitioners, against the said order, filed Constitution Petition No,187 of 2008, which was dismissed by the High Court vide its judgment dated 22-12-2009, which judgment has been impugned through this petition.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully scanned the record available on the file.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently argued that the respondent has failed to prove personal bona fide need of his son who is admittedly residing in U.S.A. The said son has filed his affidavit in evidence before the Rent Controller, but subsequently, request was made for withdrawal of the said affidavit. It was further contended by the learned counsel that the respondent's son is permanently residing in U.S.A and premises in question is not required by him for personal bona fide need.
7. We have taken into consideration arguments of learned counsel for the petitioners. From perusal of the record, it appears that the respondent's son had filed his affidavit in evidence on 19-3-2003 as attorney of the respondent No2, not in his personal capacity. The respondent No,2 in his affidavit in evidence, categorically stated that he asked the petitioner to vacate the shop in question, as the same is required in good faith for personal bona fide need of his son who is residing in U.S.A., but jobless and now expected to come to Pakistan and that he being an old person needs proper look after and care, therefore he had decided to call back his son who is jobless and put him in business at the shop in question. Further that he has sufficient funds for the establishment of business for his son.
8. Having consider the matter from all angles in the light of material on file, we find that the appellate Court as well as the High Court after taking into consideration evidence on record rightly came to the conclusion that the premises in question is required by the respondent No,2 for personal use of his son. The High Court in its well reasoned judgment after taking into consideration various judgments of this Court including the cases of Zahoor Din v. Mirza Ayub Baig (1981 SCMR 1081), Syed Jan Muhammad and another v. Syed Abdul Khair (2001 SCMR 1287 and Muhammad Iqbal v. Syed Sohail Wajid Gillani (2004 SCMR 1607), rightly upheld the finding of the appellate Court.
9. The High Court while hearing the petition, filed by the petitioners, elaborately discussed the, evidence and came to the same conclusion as those of the appellate Court.
10. We find no justification to interfere with the concurrent findings recorded by the appellate Court and the High Court, consequently, this petition is dismissed leave refused.