Sections 13 (3) (ii) and 15 of the tenant eviction due to the personal need of the landlord in question were, in fact, the property of the landlord's wife and daughter who had leased it to the tenant only. The landlord was not himself. The owner of the premises complex, the eviction of the tenant without the needs of the real owners, cannot be sought for his personal needs, both the owners of the underwriting shop were women pools and the landlord also relied on the landlord if a non-owner The landlord had to justify the personal need of the owners for the premises vacation, then if they can show that the use of the premises requires eviction for the benefit of the owners, the removal request is not excluded. Can be Just because he is furious with the advice of the landlord to use the landlord for the tenant for the benefit of his wife and daughter, the tenant can justify the dispute that the landlord in the eviction requests Was not mentioned, to no avail because in the given circumstances and circumstances the landlord needed his family ie his wife and daughter, and the nexus of needs. The owners, who used the shop to their advantage, could not be exonerated simply because the details of the evacuation request were missing. Landlord had not only established his desired need for the shop under question, but was also entitled to receive it. It is empty for his personal needs and for his family members who were the true owners of the shop
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2009
