Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD MUSTAFA versus HAFIZ MUHAMMAD ISMAIL

Sections 13 (3) (a) (ii) and 15 of the landlord's personal personal rent controller rejected the eviction request, but the appellate authority ordered eviction of the tenants on the ground that the landlords Needs shops as personal as needed. Seven shops, but six of them were rented, which confirmed the tenant's request that the eviction request by the landlord was not fooled, one landlord admitted in his cross-inspection that some shops Empty. By the landlords, but as a result was let out. One of the tenants had clearly stated that the landlord adjoining the underground shop had been evacuated and ten days before his testimony, the landlord was unable to demonstrate his error. Were. In connection with the shop dispute, his removal request as a rent controller appeals authority did not justify the order of the rent controller; because of the wrong order, the High Court on the other hand appealed. Put it property advocate from Jehlum lawyer