Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD MUNIR versus ANWAR BEGUM

The Cantonment Rent Restriction Act 1963 Section 17 records indicate that the landlord's personal need was indicated that the landlord had no other shop in the area (where the inquiry shop was located). On which he could occupy his business, his residential tenants confessed that the landlord did not own a shop but provided books and stationery to some schools, such as a rotating business homeowner. It may need a shop with good faith for its use. The fact is the landlord was in possession of his partner in a shop with his brother who was in possession of his brother but he is vacant and the possession of this partner is beneficial to the benefit of all the co-owners. Such a proposal would not be feasible in withdrawal matters as it would create an extraordinary situation to overcome. The other co-owners shall not have a source of free / separate income for their residence for the time to come. No other premises in the area will be occupied by the landlord, ie personal occupation that could not occupy the premises. The necessity of shoplifting for personal use was established by the owner in such a way and under the circumstances the tenant was ordered to evict. famous lower court advocate from Feroz Watan lawyer