Find a Lawyer

HAMAYUN THROUGH L.RS. versus MST. NAMWAR KHATOON THROUGH L.RS.

Section 13 (6) Tenants were asked to relocate premises in connection with the eviction in connection with the eviction of the landlord that the property in dispute was not consistent with the one for which the landlord obtained the plan. And in this regard, the application for additional evidence was moved to the Court of Appeal, but it was ignored and not decided. That the landlord had failed to file a lawsuit for the reconstruction of the property and that the demand for eviction had been tainted with tainted intentions, an attempt was made to evict the tenants and raise the same rent. To rent or to rent. The tenant's legitimate confrontation that the property was different from the one for which the site plan was approved by the landowner was not available to them at all. Even if any such application was filed by him, which was not considered by the tenants in accordance with the tenants, during the approval of the anonymous order, the application was obliged to refuse only because the following The court below could not decide the petition in violation of the High Court order, while seeking remand of the matter, the court's tenants admitted that in the present appeal, the High Court did not file any additional evidence. Gone, obviously, was the object behind this request. To further exacerbate the case, Landlord admittedly owned the suit. She wanted to spend the money to improve the property, for which the site plan was approved. us immigration advocates from Kotla Arab Ali Khan lawyer