Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD, BASHARAT versus MRS. UZMA BHATTI

Section 17 (4) (b) (iii), Provision 3 Exhausting Tenants Out of Personal Requirement Landlady attempted to evict a tenant from an unnecessary residential building due to personal need to rent controllers Accepted the application and issued an order approving the tenant that the application was premature, the landlord wanted to increase the rent and the section 17 (4) (b) (iii) of the Cantonment Rent Restriction Act, 1963 As the provisions apply, the building of the justification was left to the tenant for tenure. 22 2 Three years from 2002, the period which was to expire 21 21 2005, while the withdrawal request was filed on 24 7 2004, while the contract period expired during the approval of the dismissal application, which was decided on 15 5 took place on 2007 and as such, the tenants had lost their utility of Section 17 (4) (b) (iii) of the Cantonment Rent Restrictions Act, 1963, only then applicable when the building Was explicitly excluded for any purpose or for which purpose it was changed. The written consent of the feudal agreement between the parties did not precisely indicate that the building was explicitly excluded for the purpose of selling or hiding books, but nothing was available to prove that The business began with the written consent of LandLandy. His personal need for a rent increase was ensured and the uprising was not proven, the High Court refused to interfere with the order passed by the Rent Controller. best law firms from Gaggo Mandi lawyer