Sections 13 and 15 reveal the personal need of the landlord to the tenant, the matter of finding the final result of the fact by two courts is the property of the son of the landlord in the jurisdiction of the High Court, the eviction of the tenant is the landlord. Based on personal needs. He was living in a house owned by his son, the tenant controller, who had passed the eviction order against the tenant and was retained by the lower appellate court. Valdetti was the only landlord in Landlord named after his son, therefore, the landlord was required in the rental premises as the landlord had no other home for his personal use. Proved that he needed a home for his personal needs. The landlord appeared as a witness and presented a testimony in support of his claim of need, while the tenant failed to break the fact of the landlord's statement. After properly appreciating the evidence on record, the two courts at the same time decided that it did not need a damaged premises. Under the finding of the tenant controller and the lower appellate court, instead of the concurrence of the courts, the tenant itself and the High Court had no jurisdiction that it was based on extensive, careful and accurate examination of the evidence and was not subject to any Didn't even encounter bad news. In the exercise of the jurisdiction of the appeal, the conclusions of the two courts below were denied to interfere and it was maintained that the second appeal granted against the tenant was dismissed.
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2010
