Find a Lawyer

MST. KHALIDA FAROOQ versus MST. MARIAM YOUSUF

Section 15 allowed the application for eviction on a personal rent control requirement for hunger, but the appellate court agreed to pay the same tenant better rent, but the owners refused to accept it. And made a statement before the High Court that the shopkeeper needed it personally. On the High Court, her husband Landlady showed this to his good use, because of security deposit and payment of electricity charges, etc. She is willing to pay Rs. 300,000 to the tenant even though she has made security deposit. Was not responsible for paying anything more than money. The High Court explained to the landlords the implications of Section 15A of the Sindh Rated Premises Ordinance 1979, that Landlady had no intention of applying the right effect to give the damaged shop to someone else for no other purpose. Use. She rejected the appellate court's decision seeking to exclude the tenant high court from exercising constitutional jurisdiction or in the circumstances against the tenant. law firms from Sagri lawyer