1. ' GHULAM MUJADDID, J.--This petition for leave to appeal by Muhammad Ayub and Muhammad Azam is against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 15-10-1988.
2. ' Mst. Nusrat Begum respondent in this petition is the landlady of Shop No,696, situated at Sadar Bazar, Sialkot. She sought ejectment of the petitioners from the aforesaid premises on the ground of default and that the property was required bona fide for her personal use. The ejectment application was contested. The Rent Controller framed the following issues:--
(1) Whether the respondents have paid or tendered the rent to the petitioner for the disputed period?
(2) Whether the petitioner needs the shop in dispute for her personal bona fide need?
(3) Relief.
3. ' The issue pertaining to default was not pressed. With regard to the personal bona fide need, the Rent Controller found that the landlady had failed to establish that. The result was that the ejectment application was dismissed.
4. ' The landlady filed an appeal before the High Court which was accepted by means of the impugned judgment.
5. ' The High Court discussed the entire evidence and observed as under:-- "The evidence produced by the appellant fully establishes the plea regarding bona fide requirement of shop for personal use. The finding on Issue No,2 recorded by the Rent Controller is based on misconstruction of the evidence which cannot be maintained. The findings on Issue No,2 of the Rent Controller are hereby reversed. Issue No,2 is decided in favour of the appellant."
6. ' While accepting appeal, the learned Judge of the High Court gave four months time to the tenants to vacate the property and hand over its vacant possession to the landlady.
7. All along the learned counsel contended that the landlady had failed to prove bona fide personal need. The High Court erred in law in reversing the finding of the trial Court on this issue and misconstrued the evidence.
8. ' There is no force in these contentions. As already observed, the question of appreciation of evidence was within the scope of the High Court the matter being a first appeal. We are not prepared to re-appraise the evidence nor have we found any misreading of evidence nor that any evidence was not considered by the High 'Court. No ground for leave.
9. ' Dismissed.