HAROON NARA versus ABDUL KARIM MANIYA
In response to land rented by the tenant by the tenant tenant, Sindh Ordinance 1979 Section 21 stated that it did not cover another person under question but was himself in the shop. Since the bakery was doing business, there was no evidence presented by the landlord. The question was whether the tenant and the bakery were two entities and individuals, and thus, the landlord failed to prove that the tenant. The store premises were handed over to another person; the landlord's statement is in the absence of other credentials. The facts were not sufficient to prove. And the satisfactory evidence shows that the tenant had gone into the possession of another person and that someone was also doing business in the shop and that was not proved in this case.
Find a Lawyer Near You
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer
online advocate from Balakot lawyer
