Section 15 (6) Second Appeal The concurrent results of the courts below the personal need of the landlord, the eviction order presented by the tenant against the tenant, was retained when the tenant appealed. The court had raised that the landlord failed to prove that he owned the other stores. After reviewing the evidence for factual evidence against the tenant, the following two forums were filed, after reviewing that the landlord failed to disclose that his area was not suitable for his personal needs. I had other shops and they were not suitable for them. Personal need, nevertheless, as a landlord testifying that he had other shops in the market but was not present, therefore, it is not fit for his business to have the landlord wanting to evict the property illegally. Noting that his removal request that he does not occupy any commercial property in the same area that is suitable for his city, AIDS was not deadly, and the eviction request does not require landlords to disclose. And it was the prejudice of the landlords to choose any shop for their business. Refusal to interfere with the conclusions of the forums Second appeal has been dismissed
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2009
