Find a Lawyer

GHULAM YASIN versus GHULAM MUSTAFA

Sections 2 (c) (i), 13 (2) (i), 3 (a) (ii) and 15 (6) both the fully fixed and fully personal requirement of the house for the parties to participate in the property Claims, as the owner of the shop, that he had filed a takedown against the occupier / partner, under which he intended to run the business of his sons for his personal need. After the tenant controller recorded the parties' evidence, the dismissal request was dismissed. But the appellate authority issued a rent controller's order and the occupier / partner was ordered to evacuate the shop, while the appellant jointly appealed to the disputant / co-partner and the applicants / partner in the disputed joint litigation section. Pray for a legitimate shop in dispute under the court. There was no jurisdiction to pass the eviction order against the joint owner of the occupier / shareholder in the dispute and in violation of the fundamental law that no partner would share the joint and joint property with no shared property. Can't delete other partner. No partner can have any common property under any tenant controller under another tenant shareholder, it is justified that there is no relationship between the parties to the landlord and the tenant. The property-occupying partner cannot be evicted without having to file a file. The withdrawal request filed by the shareholder was rightly rejected by the trial court and the appeal filed by the co-partner / partner was incorrectly ordered by the appellate authority. registration advocate from Malakwal lawyer