Find a Lawyer

HAJI FAZAL HUSSAIN versus MUHAMMAD YOUSAF CHISHTI

The question of the release of tenants 13 and 15 of the West Pakistan Citizens Rental Restriction Ordinance 1959 was left to the tenant for illegal residential purposes. The landlord tried to evict the tenant on the basis that he wanted to evict the tenant for residential purposes. For non-residential purposes but nearby shops were also abandoned for the same purpose, two separate and different methods were provided to evict the tenant landlord in which it was necessary to request Under what law would he want to evict the tenant, that is, for residential purposes? Or for non-residential purposes it would also have to indicate the nature and purpose of the building for which it was required by the landlord who had not done so, the plea could be declared ambiguous, and the evidence proves that the residential A non-residential building is required for the purpose, neither should the landlord's request be considered or relied upon which constitutes a shop-building, in this case a comprehensive construction work, in which the non-residential premises are residential. May be vacant for purposes only, cannot be granted protection The rental controller has made this aspect of the matter inadmissible It was excluded as the first appellate court, however, did not publicize it and proceed without the legal controller's reversal consequences, therefore, such a finding cannot be sustained, a request for eviction. The search for the rent controller was rejected and the situation was restored. solicitors from Naukundi lawyer