Find a Lawyer

UNITED BANK LTD. versus MANSOOR AHMAD SHAH

Requests for withdrawal of Articles 17 and 27 of the Cantonment Rent Regression Act 1963 were properly served to the former Parliament tenant, but he or his lawyer failed to appear despite several delays, but the costs of the previous action against the tenant were expensed. The payment was set aside, but then the tenant and his solicitor lawyer did not accept the tenant, who fully negotiated with the company and predicted a withdrawal petition against him. Appropriate opportunities were provided to counter the dismissal request, but he or his lawyer ignored it. Had demonstrated and failed to defend the evacuation request, after the rental controller, detailing the landlord's statement, passed the partial withdrawal order: the rent controller banned the cantonment rental The required inquiry was conducted under section 17 of the Act, 1963, and the procedure was adopted by the Rent Controller, which contained provisions of section 27 of the Containment Rent Restriction. The Act, 1963, proceedings cannot be labeled arbitrary and unreasonable with the principles of natural justice stent. immigration advocates contact from Shorkot lawyer