SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.---By two separate petitions the tenants seek leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, dated 5-4-198(1 upholding their ejectment.
2. A shop measuring 24' x 11-1/2' in Main Bazar Gujrat converted into two tenements was occupied by the .Two petitioners as tenants. The landlord moved separate petitions seeking eviction, inter alia, on the ground of personal need. They were entrusted to different Rent Controllers. One of them ordered the ejectment of Muhammad Anwar on 9-7-1974. The other Rent Controller rejected the application of landlord against Muhammad Ayub on 9-11-1974. Appeals were filed against both the orders which came up for hearing before the same appellate authority and the landlord's appeal against the dismissal of his application against Ayub was dismissed. In the case of Muhammad Anwar the appeal was allowed and the ejectment order was set aside. The result was that the landlord failed in both.
3. The second appeals filed by the landlord against the two tenants were disposed of by one judgment by a learned Judge who allowed both the appeals arid directed th, ejectment of the petitioners.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners in seeking leave to appeal has contended that the landlord was already in possession of a rented shop where he was running his Homoeopathic clinic and could not be said to be in aced of any other premises. Secondly, it is said that the landlord could not combine his own need with that of his son for getting the tenants ejected. The son for whose benefit ejectment from the shop was sought had left the country and was not likely to return and carry on the business.
5. The first submission: itself is not based on correct facts for it was admitted that the landlord was no longer in possession of the rented shop. He had surrendered its possession. The first appellate authority had inferred that because the landlord had voluntarily surrendered the shop and had done so before the institution of the ejectment petition against the petitioners his act was not bona fide. This did not imply that the landlord was in fact not without any proper premises for running his Homoeopathic practice or that he had no Homoeopathic practice as such. Even if he had a rented shop then according to the decisions of this Court he was not -disentitled to seek eviction, vide Abdul Aziz and another v. Muhammad Ibrahim PLD 1977 SC 442, Abdul Salam Akhtar v. Dr. Najam Parvez 1976 SCM R 52 and Muhammad Sadiq v. Mst. Maryam Bibi 1976 SCM R 111.
6. There is no prohibition on the landlord in combining his own personal need with those of his adult sons who are not gainfully employed. It is primarily the landlord's personal need which has to be catered for and the law in identifying the personal need of the landlord has included the need of the son as such. Notwithstanding the need of the son it continues to be the personal need of the landlord. There is, therefore, no division of the need as such.
7. One of the sons of the landlord had, according to the evidence, left the country but the respondent landlord admitted that he would be returning to carry on the business. Besides, the learned Judge in the High Court considered that the clinic of the sort which the landlord wanted to run could not be run in half the shop. On these findings the ejectment of the petitioners had been ordered for good reason. The petitioners' contention that the eviction is sought in order to obtain enhanced rent, is only conjectural and not based on material on record.
8. We find no merit in the petition which is dismissed.