Find a Lawyer

TARIQ JAVED versus KHAWAJA MUHAMMAD ADIL YOUNIS

The offer, section 2 (g) (j), 17 and 24 of the eviction request between the parties, the jurisdiction of the landlord and the tenant, the jurisdiction of the rent controller was rejected by the rent controller, which stated that the parties. The relationship between the landlord and the tenant was not proved. The jurisdiction of the tenant under the Cantonment Rent Registration Act, 1963, was permanent on the existence of a landlord and tenant relationship between the parties and property-related matters, be it a building, residential or non-residential, rented land or schedule. The building should be. In urban areas, the rent controller did not have the civil jurisdiction of the common jurisdiction. Nevertheless, he was entitled to determine the relationship between the landlord and the tenant tenant had the jurisdiction to decide the question of the existence of the fact that the jurisdiction could be exercised by a rent controlling one. There was a special tribunal with binding jurisdiction and as it proved. Except for any doubt that there was no such relationship during the proceedings between the parties, his jurisdiction over this matter would cease and he could not assume jurisdiction under the Cantonment Rent Relations Act, 1963. ? The landlord and tenant among the parties was one that had a direct impact on the question of jurisdiction of the rent controller. There were some benefits to the tenancy question and it must be proved by a very high order and Mere verbal evidence cannot be proved by the appellant / landlord presenting the rent, the slightest evidence of the procedure and their best advocate from Wana lawyer