PARVAIZ AKHTAR versus MUHAMMAD AHSAN
Section 17 (4) (b) ?? Request for removal ?? Commercial building ?? Limitations Needed FBR Personal Needs were not jointly required by the three owners, but only one of them? Impact? Held, any one of the landlords take advantage of Section 17 (4) (b), in particular, when the other partner joined with him in connection with the removal of the tenant (4) (b) ?? Need premises for personal landlord needs ?? The tenant raised the question that his clinic did not require proper cover from the landlord because he was an inexperienced doctor and was in government employment ?? The High Court, while appreciating the evidence presented by the parties, invalidated the case against the tenant, in which there was no weakness? Supreme Court denies interference [Page 736]
Find a Lawyer Near You
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer
jobs for advocates from Parachinar lawyer
