Section 17 (2) (i) and 24 based on the payment of rent, the tenant's eviction was on the landlord for non-payment of rent by the tenant where the landlord appeared in court and stated on oath The rent was not paid by the tenant for a particular period, the burden on the indicator was substantially eliminated and it would prove to the tenant that he had paid or paid such rent, in the present case. I appeared in court and made an oath. That the tenant deliberately withheld the payment of the rent due to the issuance of the notice, after which the tenant's removal request was filed, on the other hand, his witness presented his oath during the court hearing. And stated irrelevant facts and opposed contradictory statements. The evidence of the two witnesses presented by the tenant did not affect the trust in view of material contradictions in the facts stated. Travelers related to default in payment of rent by the tenant were well established. The tenant was unable to present impressive or credible evidence of any trust to prove his claim, who admitted that he did not default or paid in accordance with the terms and conditions of rent. What was Regarding the rental agreement, the oral evidence presented by the tenant was contradictory and did not affect the trust and in the case of the tenant canceling the case established by the landlord in search of a renting controller. Was unsuccessful, in which case it was irrelevant. Pre-pay for rent
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2010
