Find a Lawyer

SOHAIL AHMED versus RENT CONTROLLER/SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MIRPUR

Section 18 (6) Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act (VIII of 1974), Section 44 Writ Petition Request for Dismissal Procedure for rent control under the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Rental Ban Ordinance, 1980 The submission of the rent controller closed the proof of the applicant. / The matter for the tenant and the argument was that the applicant had the right to present evidence, that the rent controller could not close the evidence of the applicant to ask and enforce the evidence to the rent controller. Were given the option of and were not obliged to follow this procedure in each case. In the Civil Code, the tenant was empowered to issue orders after the inquiry because the question fitted to decide the nature and scope of the inquiry was solely at the discretion of the rent controller, and the parties were required to produce such There is no right to force. The petition was dropped by writing evidence in support of his case

Related judgments — High Court Azad Kashmir, 2014

• AAMIR TAJ SATTI v. The STATE through Additional Advocate General 2014 YLR 2663
• MUHAMMAD AZAM v. CUSTODIAN OF EVACUEE PROPERTY AJ&K MUZAFFARABAD 2014 CLC 19
• ZAHEER AHMED SHEIKH v. AZAD GOVERNMENT OF THE STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR 2014 PLC(CS) 56
• NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN MUZAFFARABAD v. MUHAMMAD HANIF BUKHARI 2014 PCrLJ 58
• Syed NISAR HUSSAIN SHAH v. Sahibzada ABDUL RASHID 2014 MLD 86
• Ch. MUHAMMAD SAEED v. CUSTODIAN OF EVACUEE PROPERTY, AZAD JAMMU AND KASHMIR 2014 YLR 98
• ABDUL JABBAR v. State 2014 PCrLJ 99
• NAEEM AHMED ABBASI v. AZAD JAMMU AND KASHMIR GOVERNMENT through Chief Secretary, Muzaffarabad 2014 PLC(CS) 237

All High Court Azad Kashmir judgments of 2014 →

immigration advocates from Hattar lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes