Section Sindh (Sindh) Ren Rened Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979 of 2), Sections 2 (f) and 15 suits, the order of withdrawal was granted on the basis of personal need of the plaintiff against the plaintiff and the charge of the High Court to the plaintiff. It has been imposed that the order of withdrawal can be declared as a plaintiff. Coram Nan Judges to acquire the property by misrepresenting the ownership of the property by the company while he belongs to the chief executive. After the trial and the appellate court dismissing the case, the documents presented in another case revealed the ownership of the chief executive, preventing his request for ignorance of the property owner's ownership. went. According to the auditor's report, the acquisition of property through the company shows that the company's account has paid the property value, excise and taxation records show that the chief executive has taken his oath. The name of the company is owned by the company. It is stated that the company purchased the property through it. Disputes in a sales court cannot be the basis for determining a withdrawal order approved by competent courts when the parties upon hearing that the property is not owned by the company, still retain the default payment withdrawal proceedings. Can stay The company was receiving the property lease as rent when the landlord dismissed the appeal in circumstances \ r \ n
Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2009
