Find a Lawyer

AZAD MUHAMMAD versus MUHAMMAD UMAR

Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979 Sections 15 (2) (vi), 15 (5) and 22 of the premises for the rehabilitation of premises leased against the landlord against the landlord for the construction of the house and the reconstruction of the house. The controller has accepted. An appeal has been filed before the appellate court against the order of the rent-controlling parties, in which the tenant agrees to vacate the shop in his possession on the ground that the landlord has the same direction within that period. Will hand over the constructed shop to the tenant. Within the agreed period, the tenant may take possession of the constructed shop, the tenant may apply to the court to restore the occupancy. According to the terms of the agreement between the landlord party, the reconstruction shop has failed to hand over the tenant; the tenant has applied for the restoration of the occupation, before the appraisal of the rent controller on such application. The legal action was taken to instruct the landlord to issue a writ of lease against the landlord to restore the tenants as the agreement was accepted by the appellate court, so the forum will have an execution proceeding, Refused to be completely devoid of any power due to the final order of words. Section 22 of the Sindh Rated Premises Ordinance, 1979, will include an order of the appellate court in which the landlord who was disposed of the appeal in the case of a compromise between the parties was not willing to hand over the shop to the tenant in accordance with the terms of the agreement. But instead they offered the place to the tenant who was connected to the ladder in the street where there were pillars and also the area. advocate for immigration from Sara e Naurang lawyer