Find a Lawyer

MAROOF AHMAD versus QAMAR ZAMAN

Section 17 of the Cantonment Rent Restriction Act, 1963, requires the landlord's personal proof that the landlord was occupying the flats at the top of a class contractor building in which the disputed shops were located for the purpose of his office. The flats were residential in nature, could not be occupied for commercial purposes. Thus, the possession of such property by the landlord could not obstruct the landlord so that the unnecessary residential premises could be vacated for their own needs. Had been made, that is, in establishing his office the landlord came with sufficient evidence to disclose the record. The impact on his business is adversely affected because his office is located on the upper floor rather than the lower floor because the underground floor (currently occupied by the tenant) for commercial purposes is much more than housing on the first floor. Useful and useful where the landlord's office was located in Landlord, his choice, if not otherwise reasonable, cannot be substituted by a rent controller so nothing has been brought on record to show that That the application for eviction was not filed because Landlord's significant concern about the property requirement under question Lent, is on the record. immigration advocates contact from Muzaffarabad lawyer