Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD AZIM versus BASIT YAR KHAN

Sections 15, 21 (1) and 22 of the eviction order had been practiced by the tenant for almost eleven years and had raised the matter to the Supreme Court, but at any stage the appellant / interlocutor It did not claim that it was controversial. The premises objected that this was a collective action which the final decision in the case of removal was affirmed by the Supreme Court verdict, the appeal of the object of the Supreme Court on the basis of fraud or collective action. Should have been filed before, which was true. The rental controller rejected the application on the grounds that it was not an applicable request, even on the merits, that the appellant / interlocutor in the pursuit of a dismissal order allegedly misled the landlord, misrepresented or Had failed to establish a collusion. property advocates from Madinah lawyer