PAKISTAN INSTITUTE OF INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS versus NAVEED MERCHANT
Section 13 Termination of Tenant (Respondent) Landlord's Personal Needs (Appellant) The rent controller ordered eviction of the tenant in accordance with the landlord's personal need First Appeal Court sought rent Had agreed. The Controller High Court relied on the tenant's request (written statement) in its constitutional jurisdiction, separating the concurrent findings of the courts below, stating that the rent controller and the first appellate court proceeded. Other vacancies left by the landlord's landlord were reopened after the High Court refused to grant the landlord any opportunity to explain his position in the matter of such plea. I used my constitutional jurisdiction. The tenants, who were neither raised in their written objections, nor their evidence in the controller of rent and the first appellate court, and this was only the first time the High Court's validity was granted by the tenants. Did not dispute the fact that the plea made by the High Court together with the two courts was not raised by the tenants or their predecessors in their own interests or in their affidavits. He was first appealed before the Appellate Court before the High Court, which directed the landlord to rebel. Tenant rights without providing any opportunity was quickly decided. / Clarify their position in this regard The current process has been more than twenty years old and during this period the landlord has demonstrated his ability.
