' AJMAL MIAN, J.---By this common order, we intend to dispose of the above two petitions which are directed against a common judgment dated 24-4-1996 passed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Sindh in First Rent Appeals Nos. 152 and 158 of 1992, filed by the present two petitioners against the orders of ejectment dated 27-11-1992 of the learned Senior Civil Judge/Rent Controller, Karachi (East), in Rent Cases Nos. 1005 and 1006 of 1989 granting ejectment on the ground of personal requirement of the respondent/landlady and her son in respect of the two shops, dismissing the same by affirming the above orders of the Rent Controller. The petitioners have, therefore, filed the present two petitions for leave to appeal.
2. In support of the above two petitions Mr. Rizwan Ahmed Siddiqui, learned, Advocate Supreme Court appearing for the petitioners has firstly contended that the respondent filed the ejectment applications after about two months from the date of purchase and, therefore, bona fide personal requirement cannot be inferred. The above contention is devoid of force, firstly, that the property was purchased by the respondent in July, 1988, notice under section 18 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, hereinafter referred to as the Ordinance, was served in August, 1989, and the ejectment applications were filed in October, 1989, i.e, after about one year and four months from the date of purchase and, therefore, it is not factually correct to urge that the same was filed after about two months. Secondly, the time of filing of ejectment applications itself cannot negate the personal bona, fide requirement if it is otherwise proved by the landlord.
3. Then it was urged by Mr. Rizwan Ahmed Siddiqui that the respondent failed to prove that factually she needed the shops. There is no doubt that a landlord is supposed to prove his bona fide personal requirement in respect of the premises of which he seeks ejectment and that requirement should be reasonable inter alia as to the area. In the present case, two Courts below have concluded that the respondent was able to prove that she needed one shop for herself for opening a boutique and the other shop for her son, who had no job. This concurrent finding does not suffer from any infirmity as to warrant interference by 'this Court.
4. It was lastly urged by Mr. Rizwan Ahmed Siddiqui that the respondent is a lady of about 62 years of age and, therefore, it is not physically possible for her to run a boutique. There is nothing on record from which it can be inferred that she is not capable of running a boutique. It is not uncommon in the large cities like Karachi that women are running boutiques successfully.
5. The above petitions have no merits. Leave is, therefore, refused. However, at the request of the learned counsel for the petitioners. Mr. Rizwan Ahmed Siddiqui, the petitioners are allowed one year's time from today on the condition that they shall pay rent regularly and that in case they fail to hand over the vacant possession on the expiry of above period of one year, the learned Rent Controller shall issue a writ of ejectment without any further notice to the petitioners.