Sections 2 (b), 2 (l), 15, 22 and 28 of the Constitution of Pakistan, Article 199 Constitution Petitioner Responds to Landlord While Applying Risk to Defense by Co-Owners Was imposed but the defense tribunal withdrew its right on the ground that no petition for leave was filed by him for defense. Plaintiff had raised by the landlord that the constitutional petition was not against the intercultural order; the order of the credit tribunal was right to file leave to defend the application. To the extent of the co-owner, the Punjab Rated Premises Act, Finalize the meaning of section 2 (b) of 2009, although an appeal may be preferred by the co-owner, under section 28 of the Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009, but this remedy of appeal was not sufficient. Nor was it effective, therefore, before the Constitutional Petition was enforceable before the High Court Rent Tribunal overlooked the material fact that the co-owner was claiming to be the landlord, Nant and both were negotiating a lease, The co-owner may be included as a participant applicant in case of withdrawal. The co-owner cannot be treated as a joint tenant with the tenant as he did not meet the conditions of being a tenant as listed in section 2 (l) of the Punjab Rented Prices Act. Therefore, the provisions of Section 22 of the Punjab Rated Premises Act, 2009 were not applicable, and it may be instructed that he cannot be directed to file leave to contest the contest within ten days. , Their protests or objections
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2011
