Find a Lawyer

IAWAD LIAQAT versus ZAFAR IQBAL

Due to unauthorized modification of premises in violation of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Rental Restriction Act 1986 section 14 tenancy agreement, the reason for the increase was the request for eviction and eviction of the tenant, but the High Court together Accepting the writ petition against the decisions made, the case was remanded to the rent controller stating that it was for the landlord to prove that the application to evict the tenants was on the landlord and not over it. Tenant legitimate parties survive the issue, even if it is assumed that the issue must be recorded and the evidence changed in lieu of proof, so there will be no need for a remand of the case. There was evidence to support the parties. The tenants were unable to explain how it was necessary for the landlord to breach the contract the To keep the parties alive to some extent and to offer evidence of support and rejection. In this case the issue is to be eliminated and to promote the reality of manipulating the structure in violation of the agreement. Presenting the matter or even disrespecting it would not justify the remand of the case when both parties with evidence of the case were alive to the matter and came out with evidence to support their own disputes. Order was approved This can be confirmed by the rent controller and the appellate court below, even in the eviction request by the landlord, any of the three that the High Court has ordered in the de novo trial. power of attorney advocate Swabi lawyer