Find a Lawyer

MIAN MUHAMMD AMAR YOUSAF versus GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN THROUGH SECRETARY MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND WORKS, ISLAMABAD

Section 8 Property Act (I82 of I82), after the expiration of the section 106 possession and the use of the house, after the termination of the period of compensation for the use of the house after the expiry of the double rent rate compensation. Compensation for Defendants The High Court did not enter into a new lease agreement after the appeal period amended to allow partial compensation at the rate of 10% of the rent, with Defendant's notice from it Did not demand premises leave and demand for recovery of compensation. The house is located in a precincts of the city that can be rented out even more when the plaintiffs' Supreme Court demands that the Supreme Court set aside the unanimous decision and uphold the decree passed by the trial court at trial. \ r \ n

Related judgments — Supreme Court, 2009

• TALIB HUSSAIN v. State 2009 SCMR 825
• SAEED AKHTAR v. State 2009 SCMR 834
• AXLE PRODUCTS LIMITED v. ALLIED BANK OF PAKISTAN LTD. 2009 CLD 836
• PARKS PAKISTAN (PVT.) LTD. through Managing Director v. PRIVATIZATION COMMISSIONER, through Secretary 2009 SCMR 838
• QAISER JAVED MALIK v. PERVAIZ HAMEED 2009 SCMR 846
• MUBARAK ALI v. FIRST PRUDENTIAL MODARABA 2009 CLD 849
• Ms. CLARE BENEDICTA CONVILLE v. Mst. SABAHAT IDREES 2009 SCMR 851
• MAHMOOD HUSSAIN LARIK v. MUSLIM COMMERCIAL BANK LIMITED 2009 SCMR 857

All Supreme Court judgments of 2009 →

top civil advocates from Kamra lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes