Section 17 Defamation Request Defined in payment of rent and personal necessity, as the basis for the denial of the landlord and tenant relationship between the parties, the defendant claimed that he had inherited the property from his father for rent. Accepting the withdrawal request from the controller of the two parties did not bring the record title. Property documents The documents show that the property of the Cantonment Board was previously owned by the respondent's father, after which the utility connection on the property was in the name of the respondent's father requesting a default eviction in payment of rent. Had been charged for the last three years, but during that period the applicant made no attempt at law to recover it, the two parties had examined only one witness, but they had not filed any complaint with the Cantonment Board office. The witness was not summoned in favor of his evil. Property was controlled and administered by the Cantonment Board Documentary Proof Practice The recording process of the Cantonment Board and other departments did not prove to be lawful. The rent controller did not read, discuss or even explain the rental control document in the broken order, did not find or reason for the title of the legal obligation of the property. Each document on record was to be negotiated by the rent-controlling parties in order to determine the exact relationship and resolve the relationship. The High Court subsequently accepted the appeal and remanded the tenant controller remand for its decision.
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2010
