Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD ASHRAF versus LAHORE METROPOLITAN CORPORATION THROUGH LORD MAYOR

Sections 2 (f) and 3 (38) of the Specific Relief Act (of 1877), section 57, were filed by the plaintiffs for a permanent injunction restraining the threat of illegal occupation and removal of illegal structures. The court ruled in his favor, but the appellate court dismissed the case raised by the plaintiffs and that he was in possession of the dispute in the past. 24 years and was paying dues to the municipal authorities. Property rent was an amount paid by a tenant or tenant for any land legally in money or kind which was allowed to be separated separately for business / business, according to the evidence provided by the plaintiffs. The money I collected through the invoices I made was legally payable. Only if there was a tenancy between the parties, which was never created, therefore, the payment of rent to such hills and the plaintiffs could not be declared tenant of the municipal corporation because they were on record. Failure to prove that they would have seized the land under the permission of a legal authority / authority if the claimant had deposited this amount with the custody market fee. , They were deemed to be licensed but the custody submitted by them was not in the form of a written order and a permanent injunction was in the form of a fine order in which the tenant's position as the High Court was in the possession of the plaintiffs. Was not included in the announcement. Refused to interfere with the decision in the jurisdiction of the amendment and the order passed by the appellate court will be dismissed in the circumstances how to become a advocate from Chakwal lawyer