VICTORIA FURNITURE MART versus STATE LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN
Article 15 Sindh Culture Heritage (Protection) Act (Sections XII Of 1994) Sections 7 & 8 Pakistan, Article 199 The Personal Needs Scope As a tenant premises, status is a protected heritage b. The need to rebuild improper premises was simultaneously allowed. The tenants (applicants) dispute was that the landlord had no personal need, as the landlord intended to sell the premises. And that, under the Sindh Cultural Heritage (Protection) Act, 1994, the premises were termed "protected heritage", therefore, the need for reconstruction had become a controversial justification, as a matter of personal necessity. The evidence of the landlord's witness could not be shaken. During the cross inspection and the tenant could not prove that the landlord's statement was inconsistent with the procedures requested in the eviction request, Landland was approved to rebuild the premises each year during the course of the proceedings. No need to renew, because the renewal was just a regular one, and expiration of the approval period for rebuilding will not frustrate the proceedings, nor will the landlord disperse by trying to sell the landlord cover. And as a result will need to be removed personally. That the premises were termed as protected heritage under the Sindh Cultural Heritage (Pre-Service) Act, 1994, because the matter had no concern with the tenants and the matter was between the landlord and the concerned authorities. If the tenant could not survive eviction on such land then otherwise
Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2013
