Article 15 Constitution of Pakistan, Article 199 Constitution Petitioner Bona was removed by the Comptroller of the Appeal for eliminating the need for personal housing, which was partially accepted by the Appellate Court in view of the landlord's personal need. By default on a rent payment eviction request that was not challenged by the landlord, Waldetti Landlady did not disclose in its evidence the nature of the business that they intended to establish in the destroyed premises. What was another store, bigger than that, the vacant lot was vacant and it was in his possession before filing a rental application. Landlady tried to rectify his case in his evidence as his removal request. I did not mention the landlady or the proof that another store is empty and occupied I have and it was not suitable for the business which he intended that Landlady would provide a satisfactory and satisfactory / explanation for occupying a particular premises that would be occupied and used in another location. Le Pre will not preferentially use to occupy any place, nor was such invisibility neglected by its owners as the appellate court has a good reason for the improper decision of the Rent Controller. The reason for the disagreement was vague and non-verbal, which was accepted on the record without appreciating the evidence. The appellate court's rental controller's findings were misconstrued and were based on false evidence. The appellate court has set aside the rental controller's appellate court's decision to stay aside.
Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2014
