Section 17 Tenant Bona was granted proof of personal need of the landlord based on the non-disclosure of other properties owned by the influence of the landlord and eviction by the tenant on the basis of the complete requirement of the landlord and The landlord was not needed. The premises for themselves and in their application did not disclose any other property regarding the personal need for personal property of their property and in this connection a positive statement for the purpose of excluding the liability from the landlord Along with the cross-examination test was sufficient. It has been consistently stated that the highest property his daughter needed for the establishment of a clinic was the tenant on whom the tenant resided; it was prejudicial to the landlord to choose the property of his choice and therefore He was the best judge of his needs. Such a principle would succeed if the tenant could not impose his will and desire on the property and in such a case Arden was on the tenant to rule out the need for a heavy smell, and there was convincing evidence. It was not that the landlord's requirement was presented to the tenant to prove him wrong and the witnesses presented by him were either interested in the purpose or the landlord was not aware of the need, therefore, such witnesses decided Can not The choice was neither necessary nor necessary for the disclosure of other property owned by the property in its application nor in the eviction order approved by the Controller of Rent, under section 17 of the Cantonment Rent Records Act, 1963 To intervene
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2009
