Find a Lawyer

NELOFAR SOOMAR versus MST. SHAHIDA

Section 17 (4) (b) disclosure of personal need to the tenant Bona The business disclosure had two shops in Llandlady in different areas of the city and it had to evict the tenant from the shop located in the cantonment area. Demanded rent. The significance of the personal need for the planter by the tenant was that the landlord did not disclose the nature of the business that he wanted to do in the shop in question. If there was any other place available for housing, it would have to travel beyond mere statement and the purpose was to select the premises that were more suitable than the other premises available to him because the landlord had to evacuate. It was not necessary to disclose in the petition what business he intended to start in the premises. The High Court refused to interfere with the tenant controller's order of dismissal against the tenant. In the circumstances the appeal was dismissed

Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2010

• MUHAMMAD SULLEMAN JATOI v. State 2010 YLR 441
• FAYSAL BANK LIMITED v. BADIN BOARD MILLS 2010 CLD 442
• STANDARD CONSTRUCTION COMPANY (PVT.) LTD. through Chief Executive v. PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Communication, Islamabad 2010 MLD 445
• Dr. ANWAR ALI SAHTO v. FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Resources 2010 PLC(CS) 446
• ABDUL MANAN v. State 2010 YLR 447
• MUHAMMAD WAHID v. ADNAN MEMON 2010 CLD 450
• MIRAN BALOUCH v. State 2010 YLR 451
• RAJO KHAN v. State 2010 PCrLJ 452

All Karachi High Court Sindh judgments of 2010 →

patent advocate from Malakwal lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes