Find a Lawyer

SADAR DIN versus SHAKEELA BEGUM

The controller fixed a preliminary issue between the parties denying the relationship of the landlord and the tenant in conflict with the provisions of section 2 (g) (j), 17 and 24 of the Cantonment Rental Act 1963 And after recording the evidence, the landlord's request for eviction has been accepted, which the occupying advocate had stated that no evidence would be given by the occupying tenants then it was discovered that the landlord was between the parties. The landlord and tenant relationship exists and since the payment of rent / tender was not requested, the removal of the occupied persons In his appeal against the injunction, he claimed that the rent controller had not heard him and his lawyer had been declared a misrepresentation that no evidence would be given in his defense that the appellants For them too. In the proceedings before the hireling controller, the lawyer, in his affidavit, allegedly attributed the statements to him and took the position that the rent controller had administered the affidavit by the respondents / landlord. In the absence of any retaliatory action to be disputed and disputed, there is no good reason for the appellant / occupier. The accuracy of his affidavit was not expected by the landlords and their solicitors to establish the existence of a landlord and tenant relationship that would allow them to settle the matter without interruption. Of course, which was undoubtedly the truth. Appeals were denied on the basis of a mistaken statement from his lawyer, the tenant top advocates from Malakand lawyer