Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD FAROOQUE versus SHAKEEL AHMED

Article 15 (2) (vii) and 21 Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Article 199 Constitutional Appeals Maintaining the personal need of the appetite for the determination of the right to own the 1/7 th share of the property, suitable for the question of possession. The landlord was not required by law to declare all other property in his possession; in the present case, there was a clear need for the landlord. It was proved by his older brother that the personal need of the landlord was presented as proof that when he owned the landlord's other shops in the same premises, he would be considered proud of such a home. The owner will not refrain from opening specific shops to run his business. There can be no basis for running a business to defeat its unemployed son above and beyond. In fact, the question of fact, which is ultimately decided by the two forums below, will leave no room for the landlord to reopen so that the person does not have to appear in person to prove his untimely need. This can also be proved by a fully negotiating lawyer with the facts of the case separating the appeal of the constitutional application; it was sustained in a narrow jurisdiction and was not a substitute for the resolution of the second appeal. n \ r \ n jobs for fresh advocates from Malakwal lawyer