Find a Lawyer

SH. RIAZ AHMED versus ATTA MUHAMMAD QURESHI

Section 13 DISCLAIMER APPLICATION For the son of the landlord the landlord had a personal need for a disputed shop, the disputed shop was not required for the landlord's son's use. And the purpose of the eviction request was to increase the illegal submission of rent to the landlord and his son so that none of the six rented shops were occupied by the landlord; the landlord during the eviction proceedings It was necessary to sell another tenant's shop. The tenant did not accuse the tenant of his ownership as well as his position on the shop he owned, nor was he presented with any evidence that the sold shop owner or his son. Thus, the landlord did not have to explain such a sale. r \ n

Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2009

• MUHAMMAD AMIN v. State 2009 MLD 470
• Raja MUHAMMAD ASHRAF v. PUNJAB PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION 2009 PLC(CS) 471
• MUHAMMAD BILAL v. State 2009 YLR 472
• AFTAB AHMAD KHAN v. GHAFOOR AHMAD 2009 PLD 473
• SARDAR KHAN v. State 2009 YLR 478
• MUHAMMAD ILYAS v. ELECTION TRIBUNAL 2009 CLC 480
• SHAUKAT ALI WAHLA v. CHIEF ADMINISTRATOR OF AUQAF, PUNJAB 2009 PLC(CS) 481
• COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX v. J.D. SUGAR MILLS LTD. 2009 PTD 481

All Lahore High Court Lahore judgments of 2009 →

immigration advocates contact from Dera Bugti lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes