Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD AZAM versus ADMINISTRATOR, MARKET COMMITTEE

The case for claiming Articles & Claims 42 and plain 54 was that he was the owner of the suit plot as a tenant of the market committee and after buying the shop he was doing business on which the plaintiffs had given him the notice which the committee had given him. Was directed to evacuate. After removing the super structure created under it, the conspiracy accuses them of being illegal and ineffective for their rights-based claimants, and consequently, it is relieved that the committee interferes with their peaceful occupation. Always be barred from doing so, based on the claimant's claim that the tenancy was in their favor on the suit plot, but they failed to prove their claim as merely a proof of the plaintiff's claim and the rent was paid in advance by the claimant. Includes testimony on deposit of deposit and rent submitted by the claimants. The appellate court's finding that the plaintiff failed to prove to his tenant was sufficient for the CEO to establish the appellate court's decision for good reason, at any discretion, credibility or justification and speculation. Cannot be considered based on property advocate from Kahuta lawyer