Find a Lawyer

ABDUL QAYYU versus MUHAMMAD AZIM

Objection to the tenant / decree executing the order of Section 22 Exchequer 4, on the occasion of execution against him, he had requested that the landlord / decree bearer receive some money from him. Later he had a fresh tenancy agreement with him and he continued to receive it. According to the latest tenancy agreement the rent is subsequently received by the landlord, the landlord strongly denies the latest tenancy agreement and the tenant was not allegedly received by the landlord. Cannot offer receipt of money, nor can he provide rental receipts received by the landlord. If the latest agreement was supposed to be executed as well as the allegedly recent agreement, it was wrong because it failed to meet the terms of the Section 22, Sindh Rated Premises Ordinance, 1979, which stated Provided that no payment can be made in the execution of the withdrawal order. , The agreement or agreement will be valid unless such payment was made prior to or with the prior authorization or withdrawal order of the Contracting Authority, but in the event of the satisfaction of the alleged fresh agreement, the prerequisite was that it was properly detected. That the tenant's request, filed by him as a shield against the eviction, was illegal, was malala and was filed only to protect himself against eviction proceedings and court misconduct. immigration advocates contact from Bewal lawyer