Find a Lawyer

ROHAIL versus AHMAD

Section 13 (3) (a) Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Article 199 Directly under the premises of the cinema the personal needs of the landlord were rented out by the houses only and the fittings, installations, etc. as well as the structures. Only the tenant owned. One landlord appeared before the rent controller and he also stated in very vague and general terms that some landlords need the land for their housing and business purpose after construction. No specific details and details were given about who, among the landlords, wanted to extend the construction of the residential premises and such landlords did not already have a suitable location for their housing or a rental premises. Lived in In order to prove their disappearance, the check was the same position in relation to the part of the area that the landlords had claimed for non-residential purpose. Both courts, under the local building, discovered that the landlords needed the premises. In spite of the justification of the justification, the statement of the landlord should be given considerable weight on a personal need, yet at the same time, a landlord was not free from his legal duties. Appearing before the court and presenting the origin of the demand As per the requirement of the co-landlords, the property was claimed, he failed to appear in court, and the statement of one of the landlords proved their dishonesty. Was inadequate to do. Demand-based offenses can only be excluded from the material evidence / evidence brought on record, because the person who allegedly wanted the cover, according to his personal needs, was not examined and top advocate from Kala Bagh lawyer