Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD IMRAN versus MUSTAFA HUMAYUN

Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979 section 2 (f) (j) and 14 because of the retirement landlord and tenant's personal need of the landlord, the relationship of Landlord who needed to shop for his own use in running his own business. Was. Through employment, the tenant was given a legal notice under section 14 of the Sindh Rented Premise Ordinance, 1979. After the notice was unknown, the landlord filed a removal request, which acknowledged his initial status as a tenant. Thi had claimed that the underdog shop was purchased by him. The landlord's sale agreement and specific performance lawsuit were filed by the High Court, pending his decision. The tenant was entitled to respond to the suit filed by the landlord on behalf of the tenant and the tenant filed a lawsuit and sought to obstruct the eviction proceedings. The simplicity of the sale was a preliminary document in the same way that no title would be made and it would be completed in a legal context when the sale process was carried out to that effect, legality could not be attached to the contract. That the contract would only be honored under this agreement and thus all proceedings prior to the legal forum should have the rental control disabled, under which circumstances, the tenant's termination was not justified. On the occasion of retirement by the landlord, regarding the direct use of the houses, only because the landlord's use of the land is in view of his retirement, the alleged sale agreement On account of property advocate from Takhtbai lawyer