' ABDUL QADEER CHAUDHRY, J.--The petitioner is a tenant in respect of Shop No, 2290, Mochi Lara, Peshawar. Syed Mir Afzal Shah filed an application for the eviction of the petitioner on the ground of default; personal requirement of himself and his son namely, Fayyaz Ali Shah. The application was contested by the petitioners. The learned Rent Controller accepted the eviction application on the ground of personal requirement of the landlord, by means of order dated 8-2-1986. The petitioner challenged this order before the District Judge but his appeal was dismissed on 4-12-1986. The petitioner then filed a Constitution petition in the High Court and the learned High Court dismissed the same on 6-2-1989. All the grounds urged by the petitioner were considered and repelled by the learned High Court.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that after the death of the landlord, the cause of action came to an end. The Courts below have not accepted the contention of the petitioner.
The eviction application was filed by Syed Mir Afzal Shah for the personal requirement of Fayyaz Ali Shah, his son. The learned counsel has referred to para. 3 of the eviction application but the bare perusal of this para. Would indicate that the shop was required for Fayyaz Ali Shah. Even if, the shop was required by the applicant for himself and his son, the requirement of son does not extinguish after the death of his father. Therefore, we see no force in this contention.
3. The next contention of the learned counsel is that after the death of Syed Mir Afzal Shah, his son Fayyaz Ali Shah did not appear to support the averments made in the eviction application.
4. Mir Afzal Shah had appeared as a witness and he had supported the contents of the eviction application. It was not at all necessary that Fayyaz Ali Shah should have also appeared as a witness.
5. The learned counsel has contended that Fayyaz Ali Shah is also doing business in a rented premises, but this fact has been concealed by the petitioner in the eviction application and during the examination of the landlord he had admitted that his son was doing business in a rented premises. The learned counsel has referred to Fakhruddin v. Asadullah Shah PLD 1982 Kar. 790 which is of no help to the case of the petitioner rather it supports the case of the landlord. The landlord throughout had stated that he required the shop for personal bona fide use of his son and during the course of trial, it had been brought on record that the son was doing business in a rented premises. This fact itself established the bona fide requirement of the landlord.
6. The learned counsel tried to distinguish Abdul Aziz and another v. Muhammad Ibrahim PLD 1977 SC 442 and submitted that in that case the landlord had given clear particulars of his case but in the present case the landlord had concealed the material facts.
The principle laid down in the judgment of this Court is that a landlord who is occupying a rented premises is entitled to claim the possession of his own property. There is no force in this petition and leave to appeal is refused. However, four months' time is allowed to the petitioner for handing over the vacant possession of the premises in dispute to the landlord.