Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD JAMIL versus GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN

West Pakistan Citizens Rental Ordinance Sections 13 and 15 of 1959 require the landlord to own the landlord effect on other landlord shops in the same premises. Such an order was set aside in the appeal by K's son who was unemployed and wanted to start his own business. The first appellate court had completely misinterpreted the relevant law and arbitrarily concluded that the landlord did not need the landlord in any case because he had failed to prove his evidence. Only the ownership of other shops in the same building will not prevent the landlord from running a specific shop to run his business or to benefit his son's business. The landlord's son was admittedly unemployed and on record It is indicated that the landlord needs a home to benefit. In order to run such a medical and general store choice, his son would lie to the landlord to choose the right premises, neither the rent controller nor the tenant to run his son's business. Can insist that any other shop be emptied to meet the personal need of the landlord or the decision made by his son's First Second Appellate Court, by which he dismissed the landlord's removal request. The tenant was set aside and the tenant was allowed to make such a request. advocates from Kallur Kot lawyer