MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE BUTT versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, LAHORE
Sections 13 (3) (11), (4) and 15 of the tenant were evicted on the basis of personal need as witness in support of their personal need. Ordered the eviction, and the appellate court filed a second appeal verifying the tenant overcoming the rent. To be fired, though, when he stated that he was an employee, in a firm, but he wanted to do his business. It was the basic right of every person / citizen to do their business for a better income and income and Improve your financial resources. The person in service wanted to do business in his property on his property, it cannot be assumed that this type of service / job should reflect his need. It prepared the tenant to record the facts / factors, which led to militia against the landlord's dishonesty and the dishonesty of the purpose. However, there was a lack of conspiracy in the matter. , Especially when the landlord's son was unconfirmed that he would take possession of the property on his own business, and if it did not, he would return it to the tenant otherwise the West Pakistan would be on civilian rent. Under section 13 (4) of the Prohibition Ordinance 1959, there was also a substantial check. It was provided that if the landlord does not take possession of the property within one month of the date of the eviction order as per the personal requirement, the evicted tenant controls the rent. May request the recipient to issue an order that the possession of such property be restored.
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2010
