Find a Lawyer

AHMED DIN versus MST. FATIMA

In section 114 (2) (c) and 38 of the Special Relief Act (of 1877), the plaintiff 42 declares with the impression that the defendants were not tenants of the occupation. In their evidence, the defendants claimed that they were the tenants in possession of the suit, and after being told that the tenants had acquired the property rights by collecting the damaged property and the renovation was in their favor. Was confirmed on. Claims for occupying the disputed land were dismissed on the grounds that they had not submitted the e-mail address even after extinguishing the tenancy. Within the stipulated period, the valid deposit of the gold deposit was deposited within the legal period; the land, under the circumstances, in the occupation of the tenants under section 114 (2) (c) of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887. Because the defendants were released. The village will be deemed to have given up their tenancy was wrong because it did not even appeal to the claimants - because they had come to occupy the land. There was no change in the termination of the tenancy before the tenants occupied the land for a year or in favor of it, despite the fact that the defendants had been in possession for many years, giving legal leave. The matter was not made. Out \ r \ n \ r \ n pakistani advocates Quaidabad lawyer