' Learned counsel has in support of this second appeal by a tenant under section 15(4) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, calling in question the concurrent finding that the respondent requires the shop in question for the use of her son contended, firstly, that there is a serious discrepancy between the case set up by the respondent in her pleadings on the one hand and the evidence led by her, on the other; secondly, that the rent of the shop has been increased from time to time and the real intention of the respondent appears to be to enhance the rent, thus the alleged requirement of the son is not bona fide, and lastly the respondent's plea that she had thirteen children and that the income from her husband's shop is not enough to feed the family is also not true because the appellant offered, during the trial to increase the rent to double the existing amount of rent but the respondent did not agree to this proposal.
2. Learned counsel has read from his brief the relevant portions of evidence. I do not agree with him that there is any contradiction between the plea taken in the eviction application and the evidence led by the respondent. The respondent's husband, appearing as her attorney, deposed that his son Abdul Waheed was working with him in his shop for the last several years. The son, Abdul Waheed also appeared and admitted that he worked with his father and thus learnt the trade of an electrician; but for some months he was not working with his father on account of an accident. The fact that it was not mentioned in the application that the boy was already working as an apprentice or a helper of his father, in the eviction application, does not make any difference. The eviction application was not supposed to contain all the details. The fact that the respondent has a family of thirteen children and that there is only one earning member, i.e., the respondent's husband has not been denied. It has also not been denied that Abdul Waheed is a grown-up person and can start independent business. The findings of fact impugned in this appeal do not suffer from any infirmity, legal or otherwise.
3. The fact that the appellant offered to pay the doubles of the existing rent and the refusal of the respondent to accept this offer further supports the respondent's case that she requires the shop in dispute bona fide for the use of her son. If it were only the question of enhancement of rent, the offer of the appellant might have been accepted by her.
4. There is no justification for interference with concurrent finding of fact. Dismissed in limine.