Find a Lawyer

FIRDOUS CARPET (PVT.) LTD. versus MOTI-UR-REHMAN

Sindh Tenant Premise Ordinance 1979 Section 2 (f) (j); 15 (2) (vii) and 21 Personal Needs of the Landlord Personally, the relationship with the landlord and the tenant Proof of such requirement is on record. It has been said that there is no doubt that the applicants were the owners of the premises, but the sources included evidence that their position was very ambiguous and doubtful that the opponents had occupied the premises as one of the applicants. In addition to the tenant's statements, he had witnesses in cross-examination, apart from being contradictory and contradictory to each other. There is no doubt that the competitor / defendant had seized the applicant as a tenant, in the form of record copies of the various decisions / orders of the court, the documentary evidence presented by the competitor and the receipt of the rent produced on record. There was no room for doubt. The premises were occupied by none other than the competitor about whom the applicants failed to establish that the competitor was their tenant. As a precaution, the rent controller did not believe that the landlord and tenant relationship existed between the parties. The existence of a landlord and tenant relationship between the parties was a prerequisite for submitting an authorization to control the rent. Between the parties, the landlord and tenant relationship, the rental controller, was placed aside by the ground control order issued by the rent controller and the removal request was dismissed by the applicants. ? solicitors from Chishtian lawyer