RUSTAM S. SIDHWA, J.---This is a petition by Sheikh Muhammad Munir petitioner seeking leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, dated 11th December, 1989.
2. Mst. Kaneez Afzal respondent No.3 filed a petition for eviction of Sheikh Muhammad Munir petitioner from the disputed shop on the ground that she required the premises for the personal use of her son Ehsan-ul-Haq. The said eviction petition was allowed on 7th September, 1987. The petitioner filed an appeal, which was rejected by learned Additional District Judge on 22nd February, 1988. The petitioner thereupon filed a writ petition, which was also dismissed on 11th December, 1989.
3. On behalf of the petitioner it is submitted that Ehsan-ul-Haq, son of respondent No.3, was doing business with his father in partnership, that he had also an agency for Bata Shoes and that since the said facts were not disclosed by respondent No.3 in her eviction petition, the bona fide need of the said shop for the said Ehsan-ul-Haq does not stand establish. It is further submitted that the petitioner held a lease for a fixed period of five years and the eviction petition was, therefore, incompetent.
4. All the three lower Courts have given concurrent findings of fact regarding the bona ride need of respondent No.3 for the disputed shop, for the benefit of Ehsan-ul-Haq, the said respondent's son.
There is no principle in law that a landlady, whose son is working in partnership with her husband, cannot apply for the eviction of her tenant on the basis that her son now wants to branch out on his own and bona fide requires the premises for his own personal use. This contention has, therefore, no force. As regards the submission that the petitioner a had a lease for a fixed period of five years, the same has no force. What appears from the record is that in February, 1981, the petitioner had withdrawn her earlier suit against the petitioner on his undertaking to pay rent at Rs.600 per mensem for the disputed shop for the first five years with effect from 7 February, 1981, and thereafter at Rs.660 per mensem with gradual increase of 10 per cent each year. This arrangement did not create any fixed period tenancy. In these circumstances, the second submission of the learned counsel has no basis and must be rejected. There being no merit in this petition, the same is dismissed.