Find a Lawyer

SADAT ALI BAIG AND OTHERS versus BUX ILLAHI

Section 15 (2) (iii) (c) in the planning of the tenant evacuation premises violations of the tenancy agreement was rejected by the rent controller and the eviction order was approved on this basis. It was reported that the tenant had demolished a wall in the middle of the shop. And the store's High Court rejected the eviction order approved by the rental control administration over the use of the jurisdiction of the appeal; by demolishing the wall, the tenant violated the terms and conditions of the approved tenancy agreement. Which was a violation of section 15 (2) (iii) (c). The Sindh Rated Premises Ordinance, 1979 was based on the proper definition of evidence on the record of the tenant's finding on the matter. The landlord could not refuse to rent such evidence by the tenant. The High Court, citing only the law of the case that did not actually apply to the facts and circumstances of the case, was a complete refusal of the existing tenant to stand on the tenant standing between the e-shop and the shop. Removal of the wall from the premises constitutes a change in the original plan of the shop premises, which was not based on proper definition of evidence by the High Court overturning such a finding. The record and the law judgment were set aside by the High Court and the order of eviction was restored by the Rent Controller, the appeal was accepted. lawer from fb area from Bunner lawyer