HAJI MUHAMMAD ADEEL versus CANTONMENT BOARD, PESHAWAR THROUGH THE CANTONMENT EXECUTIVE OFFICER, PESHAWAR CANTT.
Sections 2 (a), 2 (e) (II), 3 and 6 of the Cantonment Rent Restrictions Act (XI of 1963), Section 3 (b) of the Constitution of Pakistan, Article 199 of the Constitutional Petition unauthorized, of the applicants of the Cantonment Board The property was to be disposed of. The contract was incorporated into the premises as a tenant / lease, which was not further extended to the cantonment board; after the expiry of the contract the rental premises were sealed and the applicant / tenants Previously, leases prevented them from entering their premises. The eviction was ignored by the Cantonment Rent Regression Act, 1963, so it was illegal to own the property suit from the Cantonment Board and, as such, the property owned by the Cantonment Board fell, not applicable to the Cantonment Rent Retention Act, 1963. Under the definition of ownership and government-controlled ownership, therefore, the Central Government Land and Building Ordinance Ordinance, 965, applies to 1 disputed property for each lease or licensee who owns the land or building upon the determination of the lease or license. Occupied by unauthorized occupation of the premises of the suit premises, In the event of an expiration of the term, any officer shall, at any time, enter into the land or building of the land authorized by the Central Government and withdraw its possession by eviction of a lease or licensee. And can demolish and destroy this structure Constitutional application was dismissed
Related judgments — Peshawar High Court NWFP, 2014
