MESSRS ALAM EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY (REGD.) versus MST. JAMILA
Section 15 (2) (ii) (vii) and 21 Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Article 199 The removal of the tenant was made on a personal basis on a personal payment of rent and the rent controller as per personal requirement. The landlord was allowed to apply on the land. I allowed the withdrawal based on the default amount before the rental controller clearly stated that his family had 6 sons, 2b Or and her husband. He further stated that the houses in his possession were not sufficient for his personal use; he needed to prosper the premises for his personal use. Landlady explained that her two sons were married and the third was married. And while there is nothing available on record to show that the area in their possession was sufficient to meet their need, the appellate court can record its finding in this case even though the property is owned by The lawyer was not identified for filing an appeal or for a cross-objection tenant on the matter not taken up. To show any fact that the appellate court acted illegally by reading or misrepresenting the evidence / material available on the record. Finding below the appellate court was correct and in accordance with the law, which guaranteed no interference by the High Court in its constitutional jurisdiction. In the absence of a merit in the constitutional petition, exclude it
Find a Lawyer Near You
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
