Find a Lawyer

MANZOOR ELAHI versus MST. SURRAYA JABIN

Sections 17 and 24 of the testimony (February 10, 1984), Art 117 and 120 of the personal need to prove Bevan as a proprietor as his solicitor, and his claim were fully substantiated. That he was subjected to a lengthy examination and cross-examined to steal his testimony but did not find anything worthwhile. Other witnesses testified by Landland also supported his claim that the rent controller had allowed the ejaculation application and had approved the eviction order against the tenant that the qualitative basis for establishing the rental premises. The evidence was well sought by the landlord and his demand was a real burden to prove his dishonesty and the landlord had good faith in the land and in the exercise of his jurisdiction of the appeal, the tenant controller HC Refused to interfere with. Withdrawal Order Approved by Rental Controller patent advocate from Dargai lawyer