Sections 13 (2) (ii) (a), (3) (a) and 15 provide the basis for the tenant to rely on the landlord for his son as per the personal need of the landlord. On evacuation. Unemployed, who needed a shop, because the son's name was not mentioned in the evacuation request. Neither the witnesses nor the landlord had disclosed to the rent controller in their statements that no suitable person had been appointed for the purpose of occupying the shop; if the eviction order was approved, For this reason it cannot be processed as to who will acquire the possession of the son who needed the underground shop did not appear to the tenant as the application was for the personal rights and use of the landlord's son. Therefore, it was necessary to record his presence and his statement in court. The appropriate person should explain his need without recording the son's statement. It was not possible to do that, the store's owner to prove that his personal need and can not decide this requirement. Neither allegedly supported as a party to the evacuation request, nor did he state in his plea that when the shop was left undisclosed, the enforcement of slices as a party could not be inflamed by the foundation of the slabating. , Nor can it be proved that the improper order passed by the rental controller was set aside and the eviction request filed by the landlord was rejected in the circumstances
Related judgments — Quetta High Court Balochistan, 2011
