Find a Lawyer

MUKHTIAR HUSSAIN versus MUHAMMAD AYUB

Sections 13 (2) (ii) (a), 13 (3) (ii) and 15 are indicative of the personal need of the house and the charge to meet the evidence on record that the tenant was not doing business in the shop itself. ? At different times, the tenant was a public servant and the tenant was stationed somewhere, the tenant himself could not do any business, he had to prove how and what kind of business he was doing, but He failed to prove that the same landlord had dismissed the tenant's default application for payment of rent on three grounds. An application for illegal removal of a shop was allowed by the landlord on the sole basis of the landlord's personal need, though the trial court's challenge in meeting the anti-default on payment of rent was challenged. Did not In the appeal or cross objection, the tenant could not be denied his right to challenge the landlord when it was said that when the whole matter was reopened in the appeal, the finding of the rent controller on the matter proved false. Was gone, just because it could not be retained. No appeal or cross objection was filed by the landlord and the tenant ran the shop on different occasions with questions about the different types of business he was running. us immigration advocates from FR DI Khan lawyer