Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD AMIN LASANIA versus ILYAS MARINE AND ASSOCIATES

Section 15 (2) (vii) Constitution of Pakistan, Article 185 (3) Request for eviction The landlord had part of the premises required by the landlord to start a business while the other part was in possession. The landlord company needed the entire premises of the landlord to start a business that the landlord's company had previously tried to sell to the premises, which terminated its personal need application. The fact is that the landlord was part of the company. The cover in his possession was not enough to prove that he did not need the entire property. The initial attempt to sell the premises itself could not eliminate the request of the landlord's personal needs. If the company does not find it, it may decide not to sell. For reasonable price or any other reason and decided to use the same purpose for its own purpose, the High Court had rightly accepted the landlord's application f. The personal leave of appeal for leave of appeal for appeal was accordingly dismissed. Went and was denied leave \ r \ n

Related judgments — Supreme Court, 2015

• A.M. ASSOCIATES v. GOVERNMENT OF KHYBER PAKHTUNKHWA 2015 PLD 21
• MUHAMMAD IQBAL v. MEHBOOB ALAM 2015 SCMR 21
• MUSHTAQ HUSSAIN v. FATEH KHAN 2015 PLD 27
• LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR, G.S.C., N.T.D.C., (WAPDA), LAHORE v. Mst. SURRAYA MEHMOOD JAN 2015 SCMR 28
• MUHAMMAD ASLAM v. State 2015 PLD 41
• LIBERTY PAPERS LTD v. HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION OF PAKISTAN 2015 PLD 42
• BADSHAH GUL WAZIR v. GOVERNMENT OF KHYBER PAKHTUNKHWA 2015 SCMR 43
• PAKISTAN WAPDA EMPLOYEES PEGHAM UNION v. MEMBER, NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION, ISLAMABAD 2015 PLC 45

All Supreme Court judgments of 2015 →

attorney vs advocate vs counsel from Jandanwala lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes