Find a Lawyer

ADIL BROTHERS (PRIVATE) LTD. versus PAKISTAN NATIONAL SHIPPING CORPORATION

Sindh Tenant Premise Ordinance 1979 Sections 15 (2) (iii) (a) and 19 (3) The landlord alleged that the tenant did not question the third party in violation of the tenancy agreement nor the landlord. Neither the landlord nor the tenant had filed a copy of the tenancy agreement. This shows that there were conditions of tenancy between the parties to the court which were in the circumstances, which could not reach a reasonable and reasonable determination to violate any of the tenancy of the tenancy board. This allegation, especially when the landlord failed to investigate himself in support of his case, but instead examined an unauthorized person who had no legal authority and the Sindh Rated Premises Ordinance 1979. Under Section 19 (3) of the Act, the attorney is the authority of the Rent Controller. First the applicants / landlords and their witnesses and then the respondents / tenants and their witnesses need to receive proof especially that both the applicants and the respondents who were registered bodies had examined their employees. He had no legal authority from his employer; no legal evidence was presented to support the parties' case, except for his petitions that could not be rent controller. In the circumstances, it was not permissible to pass the eviction order against the tenant, which had been set aside by the High Court under the circumstances, because of the validity of the evidence and the evidence of the consignment order passed against the tenant. pakistani advocates Sakrand lawyer