Find a Lawyer

MAZHARUDDIN versus HUSSAIN BAKHSH

Article 15 Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Article 199 Individual personal need of the landlord Constitutional, High Court jurisdiction jurisdiction over the misinterpretation and non-reading of evidence by the Controller, the landlord dismissed the removal request The landlord refused to file on the basis. The order passed by the landlord through the appellate court-controlled rent controller was upheld but the premises needed for his personal necessity were justified even though the two court cases against the landlord were consistent. There were orders but both orders were in accordance with the law in view of the case in the original view of the case, on the basis of the complete misrepresentation and lack of evidence in the eyes of the established law as applied to the court following the case. The jurisdiction to do justice between the parties had failed. Both the courts had overlooked the following material and admitted the evidence and the law. The High Court, exercising its constitutional jurisdiction, needed to consider the decision in the dispute raised in this case. The courts were to promote the administration of justice by rejecting decisions that were based on clear, contentious, fake and not considering the established law. Their orders were not justified among the parties because the landlord had proved on the record that the tenant had made a mistake in paying the rent and that the house was required for his own use. Were and are not without legal authority. Legal influence and set aside immigration advocates contact from Karachi lawyer