Find a Lawyer

DESIYON DAVID & HICKS THROUGH PROPRIETOR versus NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN THROUGH REGIONAL HEADQUARTER

Sections 2 (g), 17 and 24 of the landlord's personal need to take care of the removal request by the landlord were challenged by the tenant by stating that it was filed inadvertently and in this case I did not apply the Cantonment Rent Restriction Act, 1963. It was filed by the landlord / bank through a lawyer who filed a power of attorney during the proceedings and was not challenged on the ground that the executive of the attorney had no authority to sign it. Is that the lawyer executed the rental agreement with the tenant. The landlord bank had also filed an application for withdrawal by his lawyer and the lawyer while the affidavit in the evidence was also filed by the landlord / bank lawyer, in the circumstances the landlord was officially filed. / The bank was a law firm and a lawyer for the tenants. It failed to explain how the Cantonment Rent Restriction Act, 1963 does not apply to the tenant in this case, premises 1970, as a tenant as a premises and for so long, the landlord / bank bank No action was taken by the business, with the increase of business, the premises may be required, while there was no evidence that the corporate branch / regional headquarters bank had been transferred to the branch and the bank intended to establish a branch. The landlord's intention to be turned into a corporate branch, under the circumstances, cannot be doubted otherwise the rent on the cantonment The law, according to Article 17 (6) of 1963, the law provides that the landlord wants you to provide an overview of the house immigration advocates phone number from Miran Shah lawyer