Sections 2 and 13 of the eviction proceeding Appellant, requesting the dismissal of the first floor of the evacuation premises, accusing the husband and wife of being his tenant, denied the relationship of the landlord and tenant by the wife. The husband, who later sold the matter to the appellant on proof of proof, showed that the husband had left the case, while the husband was in possession of it before the sale by the appellant's husband. Neither was it before the court to dismiss the sale of the case. Appellant and Competition Dismissal Apart from ownership, appellant had to prove his tenancy as his landlord and wife and husband as included in Section 2 of the West Pakistan Citizens Rent Restriction Ordinance. Accordingly, in 1959, the right of a person to rent a house would be the deciding factor in the status of the landlord, or otherwise. Since the right to rent is an immovable asset, it will depend on the tenant's wife and children only in the event of his death, but the person responsible for paying rent only during his life will not be a tenant. Its mere possession of the premises would be as absurd as the premises. It has been claimed that the owner may have a license or an invalid applicant as the landlord after purchasing the suit premises from the husband, but the wife may later be sued by the owner / applicant. Didn't have to be a tenant because she was claiming she had it. In his or her own right, the appellant may pay any rent between them or on his behalf
Related judgments — Quetta High Court Balochistan, 2012
