Section 13 of the Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Arts 185 (3) and 199 rejects the request to exclude the personal requirement of the landlord rent controller on the basis of default in payment of rent but the appellate authority concludes their findings. Rejected, the tenant found an order dismissing the appellate authority. As such, the controller of rent did not find the tenant default in the payment of rent and failed to examine to what extent the controller had discretion and in appeal. Why was interference liable to constitutionally be good for interference as well, in which case the only question was whether the finding on the basis of personal need was properly recorded against the periodic increase in rent against the law? Maybe, but if the landlord needed it, the tenant could not use it as land. Depending on the benefits of another vacation, it will be the real and proper bus that he wants.
Find a Lawyer Near You
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
