Find a Lawyer

HASHMAT TAJ versus MRS. SURAYYA TARIQ

Sections 24 and 17 Withdrawal Request The party scope petitioner regarding the convenience of appeal support moved the application for its application as a party, but was rejected on the ground that it had no locus standi. The original tenant was a special law executed by the Siddiqui Cantonment Rent Restriction Act, 1963, which prevails over the common law. The lease decision or order cannot be construed as a affected party because the applicant entered the property in dispute during the eviction petition and at the time of the petitioner's jurisdiction he was not a tenant but his right. I was not a rental contract. There was a sale agreement in favor of the executor by the original tenant who had no option to make such a contract, at the same time the landlord was approving and responding to the applicant's rent. The contract and the sale contract were two different things when the applicant was a tenant so he could not claim ownership of the damaged premises and could approach the competent court to settle his complaint against the original. The tenant's applicant had no locus standi to file an appeal. The impeachment order was reached. The appeal was not retained and accordingly was dismissed.

Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2015

• PROVINCE OF PUNJAB v. ZAFAR ULLAH 2015 PLD 220
• KAMALIA SUGAR MILLS LTD. v. FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Ministry of Finance 2015 PTD 221
• NAZIR AHMAD v. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MUZAFFARGARH 2015 MLD 222
• Mrs. ZAIB-UN-NISA v. SECRETARY HEALTH, GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB, LAHORE 2015 PLC(CS) 225
• AMNA SHARIF v. POF BOARD through Director Industrial and Commercial Relations (DICR) 2015 MLD 229
• ABDUL GHAFOOR v. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE 2015 CLC 229
• MUHAMMAD HAFEEZ v. MUHAMMAD RIAZ 2015 YLR 229
• MUHAMMAD KALEEM KAMRAN v. State 2015 PCrLJ 231

All Lahore High Court Lahore judgments of 2015 →

famous lower court advocate from Sahiwal lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes