Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD KHALID versus FAKHRUDDIN

Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979 SS 14, 15 and 22 Execution validating the dismissal order against which the final election order was approved, it claimed to occupy two shops adjacent to the tenant. There were two different numbers and the owner and the wall between the two shops was removed so as to use these two shops as one or two shops were located on two different plots, one of which was owned by the landlord. And another, his son's tenant, claimed that the landlord tried to evict the shop on a plot owned by him alone. Or was it that drove him out. The tenant was instructed by the tenant controller only in connection with the landlord-owned shop, but the landlord took advantage of the fact that the two shops were interconnected, based on the order of eviction, the second affiliate. Wanted to be removed from the shop, the landlord in his removal request claimed to be the owner of the shop and he was removed, and anywhere in his removal request he filed a claim for the landlord's claim. I did not say a word. In my cross-examination, he confessed that the plot on which the second affiliate was located was his son. Whereas, even on the basis of the eviction order, the landlord would be entitled to the shop located on the plot only in his possession and no one, on the basis of the eviction order. However, another case of shoplifting was remanded to the rental controller to determine if any part of the shoe from which the tenant could be removed is the second adjacent plot. best law firm from Khangah Sharif lawyer