ABDUL RASHEED versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, SAHIWAL
Section 13 of the Punjab Rented Prices Act (VII of 2009), Sections 8, 9 and 22 of the Constitution of Pakistan tenants to deal with the rent of the past within a month and the date of submission of rent on the 5th of every month. The Controller, failing to comply with the tenant's said order, on appeal, allowed the appeal, the appellate court granted the same and the disapproving order aside, and remanded the case to the Rent Controller Land Owner, remanding it. The hiring controller is required to note that 10% of the annual rental value has been deposited in the public exchequer and if not, then such amount Order a termination, which was not done, so the landlord cannot be held solely responsible for compliance with Section 9 of the Punjab Renault. The De Premises Act, the validity of the ??? Val, passed by the Punjab Rented Premises Ordinance, 2007 and was replaced by the Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009 and the tenancy agreement under section 8 of this Act was implemented in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Was given for 169 2011 Two more years the rent controller should not have proceeded till 2011 unless the state treasury had to deposit the appellate order, it was not the reason that if he was in the field If allowed to remain, it would be equivalent to a rented tenant. The rent controller's order was not complied with because it failed to deposit the rent amount, not by collecting fines from the landlord in the public exchequer and this was done by the rent controller. Was from the side who had not taken notice of it before. The process, the circumstances of the matter
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2011
