DR. ABDUL BASIT versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE-II, ABBOTTABAD
Sections 13 (3) and 13 (4) of the Constitution of Pakistan, Article 199 Constitutional Appeal The eviction of the tenant due to the personal need of the landlord, the permanent dismissal of the landlord with the intention of the landlord (applicant) was that It needs premises. For his son who intended to run a business in the premises. Valid period (good faith) ten can be traced only if the tenant bead was the basic and essential component of evicting a home for eviction based on personal need. That the landlord was not really "poor" but rather "greedy" and just wanted to raise the rent on a custom basis or to rent the house to someone else for more rent, the trial court found the landlord inappropriate. The landlord's son was the only law student studying law abroad, and he had no experience in the field for which he personally prayed for personal need, just on the basis of simple knowledge. With the management of a specialist, a new resource person can set up his or her business in any field. The landlord had a son's right and he was prejudiced to choose a career according to his choice, temperament, family and social compulsions. The landlord's son was based on reasonable grounds but the tenants failed to prove that the applicant was not a resident but a greedy person was the landlord, it was established, the premises needed for his son's personal needs. Was. With good faith and the courts below had wrongly and illegally denied the landlord such relief, according to the High Court,
Related judgments — Peshawar High Court NWFP, 2012
