Find a Lawyer

GHULAM IRFAN versus RAHEELA FAYYAZ

The Cantonment Rent Restriction Act 1963 Section 17 (8) invades the defense for non-compliance of the rent controller's direction of direction and the accuracy of the rent arrears and the directive to collect future rent was neither invalid nor The tenant was questioned by default in compliance with the court's direction at the hearing. The total amount of rent arrears was also denied and timely rent for the month was only denied by the tenant emphasizing that the tenant controller would provide the tenant with the opportunity to file a defense statement. I was unsuccessful, but because of this the landlord accepted the strike petition. Far from being a tenant's defense, however, records show that the tenant was allowed to explain the default amount of rent, but failed to take advantage of it, so more The latter, permanently denied, the tenant failed to establish a defense, and the tenant's sole insistence on their failure to comply with the tenants' direction was remanded to the rental controller about the matter. The decision was taken. Appeal to stop the defense from giving it a second chance: Once the case is remanded, it cannot be ordered to satisfy only one party on the litigation record. It is likely that the tenant did not have any explanation for defaulting on the default in submitting the rent due and no case was found to interfere with the rental controller's search for future rent situations. best law firm from Turbat lawyer