Find a Lawyer

ZAWAR HUSSAIN versus MIRAJ DIN

A VII, R 2 Plaintiff filed a lawsuit for recovery of the plaintiffs who claimed to be the landlord, collecting money as a residual rent for the trial, but the appellate court Set aside the judgment and order of the trial court. And the same case was rejected which the Parliament had already sued before the Rent Tribunals for the same shop for which the plaintiff had rented a new tenancy after the present judgment of the Supreme Court against him. Had claimed. The Supreme Court had said that the parties have nothing to do with the landlord and the tenant. In view of the lengthy litigation between the parties, the rental appellate court did not believe that there was an oral agreement of tenancy between the parties. And, in the absence of a written agreement, the requests raised by the plaintiff cannot be accepted, the Court of Appeal also found that the parties in the shop in question were, in part, the plaintiff's own share of the shop Claim to have received compensation for the use of. , But could not claim the existence of a landlord and tenant relationship, was unable to demonstrate to the appellate court the powers, material irregularities, misrepresentation or readability of the evidence, by the appellate court The appellate court below had no error in its finding, it was revised. The decision was rejected top advocate from Doltala lawyer