Section 15 Cantonment Rent Restrictions Act (XI of the I63 of 1963), Article 17 and Constitution Constitution of Pakistan, Article Constitution 199 Constitution The process for exclusion of constitutional property was located within the premises of the Cantonment Cantonment in the cantonment area but the eviction proceedings. It was launched under the auspices of the Punjab Rented Primes Act, 2009. The request was accepted simultaneously. The validity shop was present within the limits of the Cantonment Board Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009, they had no application to the facts of the present case nor to the rent tribunal appointed under the said Act to pass a decision on the Cantonment Rent Restriction Act. Has any jurisdiction In 1963, an order was issued to control the rent of buildings within the limits of the cantonment area; a request for eviction can be filed in the court of the rent controller under the provisions of the Cantonments Rent Regression Act, 1963 and not In the tribunal court appointed by The Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009 was in the Rent Tribunal. In the present case, the jurisdiction was illegally ruled out and they had no jurisdiction to decide on the dismissal request. The finding of the Rent Tribunal was misconstrued and its basis. The ban on cantonment rentals was a misconception of sections 3 and 17 (11) of the Act, 1963. The present case since the matter was between two persons, the rent controller under section 17 of the aforesaid Act could file a eviction petition in the cantonment board court, both the courts having no jurisdiction over the above-mentioned decisions. And who is without any legal authority
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2014
