ROOTS SCHOOL NETWORK THROUGH ATTORNEY versus BASHIR AHMED
Sections 15 and 16 (2) of the Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Article 199 disclosure of a strike on a tenant's defense agreement for sale not to be considered in the rental order, by the controller of rent and submitting the rent in a separate rental case. However, the rent controller made a strike. The defense of the tenant, as applied by the lessee to the lower appellate court, was that such rent collection was not predetermined in the payment of rent and the provision of a temporary rent to a person. Could not be allowed to depart and it was claimed that the order rent controller in temporary rent did not decide such and such question or even the question of law. The final order was to be approved when the temporary rental order did not own the temporary rental order, citing sales contracts. There was a question which was dismissed in two civil suit and tenant suit in litigation and the landlord's decision was pronounced and two appeals were filed. The question about the Ding property or sale agreement was decided only. The High Court can only where the parties' appeals against decisions and decisions by the Civil Court are pending, and the Rent Controller and the Lower Appellate Court did not commit any wrongdoing, not identifying the sale agreements. Do not engage in litigation based on the provision of justice and mere technical skills. Especially if no other party is prejudiced due to technical breach, if the tenant intends to disobey the tenant controller's order, he should not deposit Rs.
Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2010
