Find a Lawyer

IQBAL versus MUSTHAQ AHMED

Ordinance 1979 section 15 (2) (ii) of the rent rent limit as set out in the payment of rent was the main dispute between the parties regarding the amount of rent the landlord was claiming for rent at a rate of Rs. It was 30 pm as the tenant claimed that the rent was only 300 rupees in the premises, in the order of temporary rent, the tenant was instructed to submit the rent on the claim by the tenant controller, which was two. Showing rent at a cost of Rs 330 irrespective of receipts and despite protests from landlord, it has been concluded that rent will be paid. The rent was Rs 300 in the afternoon and not 330 in the evening as the landlord claimed and accordingly it was found that there was no fixed promise in payment of rent by the tenant. The rent controller's search was based on a misinterpretation of the evidence as the landlord in his evidence claimed that the rent was Rs 330, including Rs 30 in Syria, as the controller agreed with the landlord's dispute over water compensation rent. And he finds that he nevertheless fails to discharge the burden of proof. He said that the tenant could not furnish any receipt in the proof of his claim that the premises rent was Rs. 300 to allow the parties to present evidence in support of their claims in respect of the premises rent premises. It will be decided again later. famous high court advocate from Pirpai lawyer