ABDUL QADEER CHAUDHRY, J.---Leave to appeal is sought against the judgment of the High Court dated 29-11-1990. '
2. The facts, in brief, are that an eviction application was filed by the respondents against the petitioner on the grounds of requirement of the shop for the use of his son Dr. Naseeb Ullah for running a clinic and for the re--construction of the said property for the said purpose. The application was contested. The Rent Controller on 11-1-1990 passed an order of eviction against the petitioner. The petitioner's appeal before the High Court was dismissed. Hence the present petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the eviction application, there was no mention of the need of his other son who was to run a medical store. He further submitted that without obtaining the licence, the medical store could not be started. This contention was also raised before the High Court and appropriately dealt with by it. The bona fide requirement of the son of the respondent has been established by the two Courts after acceptance the evidence of bona fide requirement. The obtaining of a licence is not a pre--requisite for raising the construction. The bona ride requirement of a landlord for the re-construction of an old building and settling his son to run a clinic has been established. If another son is accommodated in the same premises, it would not negative the contention of the respondents about the bona fide requirement. The application of the landlord was allowed on both the grounds, namely, for re-- construction of the old building and accommodating his son Dr. Naseeb Ullah. The two Courts have assessed the evidence properly.
4. There is no legal informity in the impugned order. This petition has no force. The same is dismissed and leave to appeal is refused.