Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD ARIF versus AHMED FAROOQ

The first eviction request was rejected by the landlord on the personal need of the wife of the landlord of the Cantonment Rent Regression Act 1963 section 17 constitution of Pakistan (1973), Arts 185 (3) and 199. Another application was filed based on personal need. The landlord's second rental application was rejected on the basis of race justiata The Appeal Court did not agree that the second petition fell under the jurisdiction of the race, but found the fact that the landlord had to prove his personal personal need. I failed and, therefore, his appeal was rejected by the High Court, the landlord's appeal in the constitutional jurisdiction moved the High Court on the wrong premise that the appellate court had also said that the second rent application was stopped by Res Judeta. Given, though in reality it was not so high court, therefore, according to the law, By not having the goods, the appeal was allowed to consider the question, the High Court justified in rejecting the appellate court's order despite the fact that the aforesaid court had already decided that the second petition Was again not affected by Judasta. online advocate from Thana Bula Khan lawyer