Find a Lawyer

QAMAR ABBAS versus MST. KEHKASHAN SALAHUDDIN

Section 15 (2) (i) and 21 Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Article 199 The tenant's dismissal rental controller and the appellate court, together with the amount set out in the rent payment, requested the removal of the landlord together. Accepted and ordered the eviction of the tenant. In this case, the default basis for the payment of the tenancy was started on the basis of the tenancy agreement in which the payment of the rent was fixed and the owner did not waive the payment of the rent paid by the tenant. had gone. By paying and applying the rent on the terms and conditions the landlord did not accept more than one rent payment without protest, which was only due to the circumstances in which the tenant had given the landlord At this time he accepted a certain amount of rent, such an act, but was never accepted by the owner and eventually refused to accept the rent which was then tendered only on the reception. After the landlord had given notice to the tenant for 6 months, he could not pay the rent on a practice basis; there was no reason for the appellate court to interfere with the finding of both courts that the tenant had There was no need for intervention on the point. The default promise in the payment of rent was that the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court should not be exercised in the case where the jurisdictional courts reached their respective decisions in which all the controversial questions were recorded. A decision was made on the basis of this and accordingly in the present case, the above courts could not proceed without any jurisdiction. when you need a advocate from Jauharabad lawyer