Find a Lawyer

HAFIZ ALTAF AHMED versus HAJI AHMED DIN

Section 13 (3) (a) (ii), the first need for a landlord, one of the first tenancy agreements that was in force for a period of 11 months, showed that the landlord was relinquished to the tenant. Will not Depending on the individual need of the landlord, in connection with the tenancy continuity, several agreements were implemented by the parties, but no one laid that condition and said that the condition was not terminated between the parties, otherwise, The situation which, by itself, was inherently against the provisions of the Ordinance 1959 of the West Pakistan Citizens Rent and which gave the landlord the right to evict on the basis of personal necessity, cannot be termed legal status. That even if such a condition was agreed upon mutually, the landlord may still have to pay the rent to the lessee for personal necessity. Deprivation may not have a lasting effect if, as the details of such requirements later, ar when its subsequent agreement also stated that the landlord was for the first time banned from the West Pakistan Citizens Rental Ordinance, 1959. There was also no consensus on the ban of section 13 (3) (a) (ii), which was agreed only for a specific period. Parties were also not available to the tenant after a period of 11 months in the first tenancy agreement, the landlord was terminated even though the terms of the contract were terminated, provided they are valid. They don't agree with the law. tax advocates from Phagwar lawyer