MUHAMMAD ASLAM versus MST. FOZIA AQEEL ZAHEER LARI
Section 14 (1) Constitution of Pakistan, Article 199 Constitutional petition Widow / proprietor seeks to remove tenant from employment because of his personal good use at the age of 63; Approved, which was previously maintained by the Appellate Court, Landlady, having owned three other shops in the same building, obtained the eviction and rented it at the same rent under which section 14 of the Sindh Rated Premises Ordinance. (1) failed to prove the service of the two under 1979, months notice of the tenants by the lessee In front of the Lee Courts, which sought to retain the eviction request, which was not considered, Impact Landlady took advantage of the facility provided under Section 14 of the premises ordinance owner under different houses of the same character. ? Empty all tenants but only one tenant was entitled to vacate under Section 14 of the Ordinance, being exclusive in nature because of limited rights cannot be extended to other tenants even if the premises are vacant. Due to real estate needs may not be sufficient as the landlord had a way of applying for personal cover based on personal need Section 15 of the Ordinance where two separate tenants were involved, both The same character, namely residential or commercial, cannot be vacated by section 14 of the ordinance. Could, constitutional application was allowed
Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2014
