Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD SAQIB versus S.M. MUSHTAQ

The default defenses in the submission of tenants to the tenants have been adjusted from the security deposit available to the security deposit available with the landlord No such commitment was mentioned in the tenancy agreement for such adjustment and the landlord. No advance rent was submitted, so no adjustments can be made to the fixed-term rentals, so the tenant failed to comply with the rental controller's order. There is every justification for preventing the tenant's defense with the tenant controller, and no exception to the rent control order sent by the rent controller can be accepted and the tenant withdrawal order Appeal dismissed in cases where I failed to identify any illegal interference

Related judgments — Peshawar High Court NWFP, 2015

• FEROZ KHAN v. State 2015 YLR 703
• Mst. SHABANA BEGUM v. NAEEM-U-DIN 2015 MLD 708
• IRFAN KHAN BANGISH v. GOVERNMENT 2015 YLR 719
• ABDUL KAREEM KHAN v. HAROON-UR-RASHEED TEXTILE MILLS (PVT.) LTD. 2015 CLD 719
• ABDUR RASHID KHAN v. ABDUL QAYYUM 2015 YLR 727
• AL-IMDAD GENERAL TRADING CO. v. PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Commerce, Islamabad 2015 PTD 734
• IQBAL v. State 2015 PCrLJ 735
• MUHAMMAD AZAM KHAN v. MUHAMMAD SARWAR 2015 YLR 750

All Peshawar High Court NWFP judgments of 2015 →

famous high court advocate from Sibi lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes