2015 Y L R 440
[Balochistan]
Before Muhammad Ejaz Swati, J
MUHAMMAD ASLAM and 7 others ---Appellants
Versus
MIRA JAN and others ----Respondents
F.A.O. No.64 of 2010, decided on 23rd January, 2014.
West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959) --
----S. 13---Ejectment of tenant---Denial of relationship of landlord and tenant by the tenant ---
Landlord filed eviction petition on the grounds of default in payment of rent, subletting and
personal bona fide need---Contention of tenant w as that he had purchased the suit premises ---
Eviction petition was dismissed by the Rent Controller --- Validity --- Tenant, in circumstances,
had to vacate the premises, and file a suit in case ejectment application was filed against him and
he had taken up the position that he had purchased the property, whereafter he would go to the
premises if he had succeeded in the litigation ---Execution of agreement which had not been
specifically denied by the other party would amount to be an admission---Tenant could not
substantiate his assertion through cogent evidence that he was in possession of the premises in
his own right ---Relationship of landlord and tenant stood established between the parties ---
Impugned judgment and decree was not sustainable which was set aside and eviction petition
was accepted ---Tenant was directed to handover the vacant possession of the premises to the
landlord within a period of two months ---Appeal was accepted in circumstances.
PLD 1985 SC 1; 1991 SCMR 1376; 2002 SCMR 1089; 1991 C LC 773; 2007 CLC 154;
1991 MLD 2381; 1991 MLD 1578 and 2009 YLR 2294 ref.
Abdul Rasheed v. Maqbool Ahmed and others 2011 SCMR 320; Bashir Ahmed and 3
others v. Muhammad Aslam and 6 others 2003 SCMR 1864; Ghulam Rasool through L.Rs. and
others v. Muhamma d Hussain and others PLD 2011 SC 119; Mushtaq Ahmad and others v.
Muhammad Saeed and others 2004 SCMR 704; Shajar Islam v. Muhammad Siddique and 2
others PLD 2007 SC 45 and Amin and others v. Hafiz Ghulam Muhammad and others PLD 2006
SC 549 ref.
Adnan E jaz Sheikh for Appellant.
Mushtaq Ahmed Anjum for Respondents Nos.1 and 4.
Javed Iqbal Kasi for Respondent No.3.
Date of hearing: 23rd December, 2013.
JUDGMENT
MUHAMMAD EJAZ SWATI, J. ---This appeal has been filed by the appellants against
the judgment and decree dated 6th April, 2010 (hereinafter the "impugned judgment") passed by
Civil Judge -II/Rent Controller, Quetta (hereinafter the "trial Court"), whereby the eviction
application filed by the appellants was dismissed.
2. The facts of the case of the present appeal are that the predecessor of appellants filed
Eviction Application No. 12 of 2007, wherein; it is averred that one Khuda -e-Dad was owner of
the property bearing Municipal No.18- 4/111- 1292, Measuring about 2245 sq. ft, having Kha sra
No.58 situated in Mohal and Mouza Ward No. 54, Tappa Urban, Tehsil and District, Quetta
(hereinafter the "property -in-question"). It is averred that the predecessor of appellants namely
Haji Fateh Muhammad had purchased the property in question from it s previous owner i.e. legal
heirs of late Khuda -e-Dad, and thus, became the lawful recorded owners of the property in
question along with its superstructure and in this regard an agreement was also executed between
the parties. It is the case of the appell ants that when the transfer of the property was demanded, it
transpired that the same had been transferred in the name of one Abdul Qayyum from whom the
legal heirs of late Khuda -e-Dad had taken some amount and as a token of security, the property
was mort gaged with him, which culminated into filing of suit for the purpose of transfer of the
property. However, later on the parties entered into compromise and the said suit was withdrawn
on 19th December, 2006. Whereafter, the property in question was transfe rred in the name of
predecessor of the appellants. In the property in question, the respondent No.1 Mira Jan
(hereinafter the "tenant") was inducted as tenant on monthly rental of Rs.500 (Rupees Five
Thousand Only) P.M. by its previous owner namely Malik K huda -e-Dad and tenancy agreement
dated 14th April, 1990 was also executed. The appellants in the eviction application further
averred that the respondent No.1 has sublet the property in question to respondent No. 3,
however, the predecessor of the appellants after becoming lawful owners of the property in
question have stepped into the shoes of previous owner as a landlord, as such issued notice
within the meaning of section 13- A of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance on
24th May, 2007, which was replied by the respondent No.1 and denied the relationship of
landlord and tenant. The eviction application was filed on the ground of default in payment of
rent, subletting and required the premises for their personal bona fide use and occupation, as they
do not have any other suitable property for their residence.
3. During pendency of eviction application, an application under Order I, Rule 10, C.P.C.
was filed by respondent No.4 for impleading him as party, which was allowed. Against the said
order, the predecessor of appellants had filed Constitutional Petition No. 492 of 2008, however,
this court vide judgment dated 6th November, 2008 upheld the order of trial court and thereafter
the respondent No.4 filed his rejoinder to the eviction applicati on, wherein he claimed to be in
possession of the property in question, as he has purchased the same from respondent No.1.
4. The respondents Nos.1 and 3 have initially filed joint rejoinder to the eviction
application, (which reflects from order sheet dated 22nd September, 2007), wherein at Para No.6,
the respondent No.3 contended that the respondent No.1 is owner and he was inducted by him in
the premises in question and the trial court framed issues on 29th July, 2009. The order sheet of
the trial cour t dated 3rd September, 2009 further reveals that the respondent No.3 again filed his
separate rejoinder to the eviction application, wherein; he has changed his stance and claimed to
be owner of the property in question.
5. It is pertinent to mention her e that initially the eviction application was rejected vide
order dated 7th February, 2009 under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C.; against which, an appeal was
filed before this Court and the said order was set aside vide judgment dated 3rd July, 2009 and
the case was remanded with direction for passing of order after providing opportunity of leading
evidence, however, the name of respondent No.2 was deleted during the proceedings before the
trial court.
6. From the divergent pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed: --
(1) Whether there is relationship of tenant and landlord between applicant and respondent
No.1?
(2) Whether respondent No.1, had committed default by failing to pay monthly rent?
(3) Whether the house in question/disputed prope rty is required to the applicant or his
personal bona fide use and residence?
(4) Whether applicant is entitled for the relief claimed for?
(5) Relief.
7. The appellants produced following eight witnesses: --
AW-1. Ghulam Haider son of Khudaidad, who produced Exh.A/1- A to Exh. A/1- D.
AW-2. Saeed Notary Public Quetta who identified 1- A, in court.
AW-3. Nazar Muhammad stamp vender, District court Quetta, who also identified
Exh.A/1- A, as sold by him.
AW-4. Abdul Wahid Patwari Tehsil, Quetta, who produced Exh.A/4- A.
AW-5. Rahim -ud-Din Reader/ Representative of Civil Judge -V, Quetta.
AW-6. Muhammad Azhar Jamal, Notary Public, Quetta, who produced Exh.A/6- A.
AW-7. Muhammad Zafar son of Muhammad Akhtar, who identified Exh.A/6- A.
AW-8. Muhammad Arif Stamp Vender, District Court, Quetta, who identified Exh.A/6-
A.
Whereafter, the appellant No.1 Muhammad Aslam got recorded his statement for himself
and as attorney for the remaining appellants.
8. The respondents produced following twe lve (12) witnesses: --
RW-1. Talib Khan.
RW-2. Agha Munir Ahmed Patwari, Urban- 4 Tehsil, Quetta.
RW-3 Muhammad Akram Meter -reader, QESCO, Quetta, who produced Exh.R/3- A to
Exh.R/3- E.
RW-4. Syed Abdul Shakoor Agha, who produced Exh.R/4- A.
RW-5. Asad Ullah Junior Moharrar Zarghoon Town, Quetta who produced Exh. R/5- A
and Exh.R/5- B.
RW-6. Safar Khan Representative of SSGC, Quetta produced Exh.R/6- A and Exh.R/6- B.
RW-7. Muhammad Yasir Repre -sentative of B -WASA Quetta,
who produced Exh.R /7-A and Exh.R/7- D.
RW-8. Muhammad Zaman.
RW-9. Mirza Mushtaq Excise Inspector, Quetta who produced Exh.R/0- A and Exh.R/9-
B.
RW-10. Kaleem Ullah son of Abdullah Jan.
RW-11. Mirza Mushtaq, Excise Inspector Quetta, who produced Exh.R/11- A and
Exh.R/11- B.
RW-12. Asmatullah Office Qanoon Tehsil Quetta, who produced Exh.R/12- A and
Exh.R/12- B.
The respondent No.1 namely Mira Jan, respondent No.3 Sher Muhammad and respondent
No.4 Muhammad Hassan recorded their statements.
9. The trial court af ter hearing the parties and evaluating the evidence, vide impugned
judgment and decree dismissed the eviction application.
10. The learned counsel for the appellants contended that the evidence produced by the
appellants, particularly the documentary evidence, have proved the factum related to relationship
of landlord and tenant between the parties, but the trial court has failed to consider the tenancy
agreement arrived at between the previous owner namely late Khuda -e-Dad and respondent
No.1; that the purchase of property in question by the predecessor of appellants from its previous
owner was also proved through cogent evidence; that the respondent No.1 in rejoinder to
eviction application has not denied the factum of execution of tenancy agreement E xh.A/1- A
dated 14th April, 1990; that the respondent No.1 has also admitted his induction in the property
in question by the late Khuda -e-Dad; that the title document Exh.A/4 -B in favour of the
predecessor of appellants is also substantial proof of their r ight and entitlement creating the
relationship of landlord and tenant.
The learned counsel for the respondents controverted the contentions as agitated by the
learned counsel for the appellants and stated that the documentary evidence produced by the
appellants have not been proved; that the tenancy agreement Exh.A/1- A regarding tenancy
between late Khuda- e-Dad and respondent No.1 has also not been proved; that the title
documents Exh.R/2- A and Exh.R/2 -C clearly establish that the respondent No.3 is occupying the
property in question on his own right; that total area of Khasra No. 58 is 120,240 sq. ft; out of
which 1833 sq ft was purchased by respondent No.3 vide mutation No. 629 dated 15th May,
2009 and the documentary proof was also adduced as Exh.R/2- C; that the utility bills related to
electricity charges were produced as Exh.R/3 -A to Exh.R/3- E, which indicate the lawful
possession of the respondents; that the respondents vide agreement dated 9th March, 1991
(Exh.R/4- A) had also purchased the superstru cture of the property in question from its previous
owner namely late Khuda- e-Dad, therefore, the respondents are occupying the property as
owners of the same; that the appellants have failed to produce any evidence to establish the
relationship of landlor d and tenant, therefore, the question related to partition and title of the
property was not within the jurisdiction of Rent Controller, as such the impugned judgment has
rightly been passed by the trial court, which is based on sound reasoning and liable to be
sustained. The learned counsel for the respondents Nos.1 and 4 relied upon the following case -
laws:
(i) PLD 1985 SC 1, (ii) 1991 SCMR 1376, (iii) 2002 SCMR 1089, (vi)1991 CLC 773, (v)
2007 CLC 154, (vi)1991 MLD 2381, (vii) 1991 MLD 1578 and (viii ) 2009 YLR 2294
11. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case.
It transpired that the property bearing Khasra No. 58, measuring 2245 sq. ft, municipal 8- 14/111-
1292 was purchased by the predecessor of the a ppellants from the legal heirs of late Khuda -e-
Dad in the manner as asserted in the eviction application has been proved through Exh.A/4- B
and Ghulam Haider (AW -1), who is son of late Khuda -e-Dad admitted that the transaction of the
property as well as execution of the agreement between the parties arrived at but could not be
accomplished, as they have transferred the property in question on the name of one Abdul
Qayyum to whom they have obtained loan, therefore, the predecessor of the appellants filed a
suit against them, which was subsequently compromised and they after receiving the
consideration amount and making payment to the loan amount to Abdul Qayyum, transferred the
property in question on the name of father of appellants namely Fateh Muhammad. He further
stated that the property in question was rented out to respondent No.1 by his father namely late
Khuda -e-Dad through an agreement Exh.A/1- A, which was arrived at on 14th April, 1990. The
recital of Exh.A/1 -A indicates that the respondent No.1 was i nducted as a tenant in the premises
bearing Municipal No. 8- 14/111- 1292 at the monthly rental of Rs.500 P.M. Saeed Ahmed
Notary Public (AW -2) acknowledged its attestation, whereas Nazar Muhammad (AW -3) has also
stated that according to his register entry N o.15850, the stamp paper of the agreement was
purchased by respondent No. 1. The ownership of appellants (Exh.A/4- B) and tenancy
agreement Exh.A/1 -A produced by the appellants has not been rebutted by the respondents
through cogent and convincing evidence. The respondent No.1 in his rejoinder to the eviction
application in Para No.5 has also not specifically denied the factum of execution of Exh.A/1- A.
12. The respondents Nos.1 and 3 in their joint rejoinder to the eviction application have
asserted that the respondent No.1 had purchased the property in question from Saira Bibi along
with its superstructure and thereafter he sold the said property to respondent No.4, yet the
evidence produced by the respondents Nos.1 and 3, is contrary to their pleadings, the respondent
No.1 through evidence and in his statement has stated that the superstructure of the house in
question was purchased by him in consideration of Rs.70,000 from late Khuda -e-Dad through an
agreement Exh.R/4 -A, which was produced through Syed A bdul Shakoor (RW -4). The contents
of Exh.R/4- A reveals as under: --
13. The perusal of recital of Exh.R/4- A indicates that the respondent No.1 has alleged the
purchase of the property from the previous owner late Khuda -e-Dad. It is settled principle of la w
that in case of ejectment filed against the tenant by the landlord, the tenant takes up the position
that he has purchased the property, hence no more tenant, then he has to vacate the premises and
file a suit for declaration or specific performance, whereafter he would go to the premises, if he
succeeded in the litigation. Reference is made to the case of Abdul Rasheed v. Maqbool Ahmed
and others 2011 SCMR 320, wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under: --
"We have heard both the learned Adv ocates Supreme Court. It is settled law that where in
a case filed for eviction of the tenant by the landlord, the former takes up a position that he has
purchased the property and hence is no more a tenant then he has to vacate the property and file a
suit for specific performance of the sale agreement whereafter he would be given easy access to
the premises in case he prevails. In this regard reference can be made to Shameem Akhtar v.
Muhammad Rashid (PLD 1989 SC 575), Mst. Azeemun Nisar Begum v. Mst. Rabia Bibi (PLD
1991 SC 242), Muhammad Rqfique v. Messrs Habib Bank Ltd. (1994 SCMR 1012) and Mst.
Bor Bibi v. Abdul Qadir (1996 SCMR 877). In so far as determination of the relationship of
landlord and tenant is concerned, such enquiry by the Rent Controller is of a summary nature.
Undoubtedly the premises were taken by the petitioner on rent from the respondent and
according to the former he later on purchased the same which was denied by the latter.
Consequently, the relationship in so far as the jurisdicti on of the Rent Controller is concerned
stood established because per settled law the question of title to the property could never be
decided by the Rent Controller."
14. The perusal of joint rejoinder filed by the respondents Nos.1 and 3 in Paras. Nos. 4 and 5
indicates that the execution of agreement dated 14th April, 1990 (Exh.A/1- A) has not been
specifically denied by them, which, in the circumstances of the case amounts to be an admission.
Reference is made to the case of (Bashir Ahmed and 3 others v . Muhammad Aslam and 6
others), 2003 SCMR 1864, wherein the Apex Court has held as under: --
"Letter dated 17 -11-1962, which is Exh.75, addressed by Muhammad Aslam to his
brothers Bashir and Muhammad Akram is specifically and categorically mentioned in paragraph
21 of the plaint, asserting that it was served but defendants Nos. 1 and 2 went on avoiding on one
or the other pretence but in the written statement about that letter there is vague and general
denial saying that rest of the paras of the plaint a re denied and further what is not expressly
admitted is hereby denied. Requirements of Order VIII, Rules 3 and 4 are that in the written
statement denial shall be specified and not evasive. Further rule 5 of the said provisions
contemplates that every allegation of fact in the plaint if not denied specifically or by necessary
implication, shall be taken to be admitted except as against the person under disability. "
Likewise, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ghulam Rasool through L.Rs. and
others v. Muhammad Hussain and others), PLD 2011 SC 119 has held as under: --
" the appellants as mentioned earlier had never joined issue with the plaintiffs about the
execution of the agreement to sell, rather made an evasive denial in their written statemen t
expressing their lack of knowledge in this regard, which is no denial as per the provisions of
Order VIII, Rules 3, 4 and C.P.C., rather such a denial may be constructed as an admission on
their part."
15. It is evident from the rejoinder to the eviction application filed by the respondents that the
respondent No.1 claimed to be owner of the property in question and asserted that the respondent
No.3 is his tenant and after settlement of issues, the respondent No.3 again filed his separate
rejoinder to t he eviction application and changed his stance and claimed ownership of the
property in question by producing the revenue record i.e. Exh.R/2- A to Exh.R/2- C in respect of
an area of 1833 sq. ft, whereas, the area of disputed property as appearing in Exh.A/ 4-B, is 2245
sq. ft.
16. The perusal of Exh.R/2- A to Exh.R/2- C indicates that these entries were recorded on 15th
May, 2009 during the pendency of the eviction application and after settlement of issues,
therefore, in the aforesaid circumstances, it can be termed that the respondents Nos.1 and 3 have
produced evidence beyond the pleadings, which under the law cannot be taken into
consideration. Reference in this regard is to be made to the case of Mushtaq Ahmad and others v.
Muhammad Saeed and others 2004 SCMR 704 (530), wherein, the Apex Court has held as
under: --
"The suit filed by respondent No.6 was based on Exh. P. 1 alleging that it was an
agreement of sale the contents of which must be in the knowledge of the present appellants when
they filed the written statement. No plea was raised that Ghulam Nabi who had signed the said
document as agent of Fazal Hussain was not authorized by him to bind him. Ghulam Nabi was
examined as D.W. 3 by the appellants who admitted his close relationship with Fazal Hussain by
saying that his sister had been married to Fazal Hussain and Fazal Hussain's sister was married to
him and that Abdul Aziz deceased plaintiff was also his `Chachazad.' They were family members
and in the absence of any plea raised in the written statement to the contrary viz, that Ghulam
Nabi was not authorized by Fazal Hussain to enter into any agreement on his behalf, they could
not be allowed to raise such a plea subsequently much less accepted."
17. The respondents having raised specific plea that they are in possession of the premises in
their own right, have not been able to substantiate their assertion through cogent evidence. The
appellants through Exh.A/1- A (tenancy agreement) dated 14th April, 1990, which has not been
specifically den ied by the respondents in their rejoinder to the eviction application and further
supplemented his case through title document Exh.A/4- B. The document produced by the
respondents i.e. Exh.R/4 -A, also supports the version of the appellants related to relati onship of
landlord and tenant between the parties. The title document in favour of the appellants is also an
important document to establish such relationship between the parties. In the case of Shajar
Islam v. Muhammad Siddique and 2 others PLD 2007 SC 45, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has
held as under: --
"This is settled proposition of law that a landlord may not be essentially an owner of the
property and ownership may not always be a determining factor to establish the relationship of
landlord and tenant between the parties. However, in the normal circumstances in absence of any
evidence to the contrary, the owner of the property by virtue of his title is presumed to be the
landlord and the person in possession of the premises is considered as tenant under the law or the
tenancy may not be necessarily created by a written instrument in express terms rather may also
be oral and implied. The respondent having raised a specific plea that he was in possession of
premises in his own right as J & K refugee has not been able to substantiate his assertion through
any evidence, oral or documentary and we having examined the record with the assistance of
learned counsel for the parties, have found that two Courts subordinate to the High Court, after
scanning the ent ire evidence in detail, have determined the status of respondent as tenant of the
premises."
The case -law referred by the learned counsel for respondents i.e. PLD 1985 SC page 1; in
that case the landlord had filed ejectment application against the Dire ctor of Education from the
property in dispute which consisted of a building, wherein a school was running. The landlord
claimed ownership on the basis of letter dated 17th January, 1978 issued by Punjab Government
to collect the rent and landlord claimed that Education Code clothe him with the ownership or
right to recover the rent; on this score his title was found under cloud.
In the case of Abdul Hameed Naz v. Mst Razia Begum Awan and 4 others 1991 SCMR
1376 in that case, plot in dispute was gifted b y the owner to Ch. Muhammad Sadiq predecessor
in interest of appellant in the year 1965 and acknowledgment dated 6th August, 1997 was also
existed, and that property was also requisitioned by the Commissioner in the year 1975 treating
Ch. Muhammad Sadiq to be its owner and rent was made to him. The appellant No.1 hired the
property and rent was being credited to Ch. Muhammad Sadiq and after his death to his heirs.
The respondent Mst. Razia Begum filed eviction application and claimed ownership on the
streng th of transfer by the Housing and Physical Planning Department Government of Punjab
with the consent of Malik Muhammad Amin. The relationship of landlord and tenant was not
established as the previous owner Ch. Muhammad Sadiq was being dealt owner of the property
since 1975.
18. In the present case, the title of the appellants related to property in question measuring
2245 sq. ft is not under cloud. The ownership document Exh.A/4- B and tenancy agreement
between previous owner namely late Khuda -e-Dad and r espondent No.1 i.e. Exh.A/1- A, which is
being acknowledged by the AW -1, who is son of previous owner and further supported by AW -2
and AW -3. The respondents Nos.1 and 3 in their joint rejoinder to eviction application have also
not specifically denied the factum of the tenancy agreement dated 14th April, 1990, however,
respondent No.3 in his subsequent rejoinder claimed ownership of the property indispute on the
basis of title, whereas the respondent No.1 while producing Exh.R/4- A claimed purchase of
supers tructure and the property in dispute from its previous owner namely late Khuda -e-Dad,
therefore, the principle of Article 115 of the Order is applicable to the facts and circumstances of
the present case. Reference is made to the case of Amin and others v. Hafiz Ghulam Muhammad
and others PLD 2006 SC 549, wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under: --
"Perusal of the above judgments shows that in case of denial of landlord's title in both the
situations i.e. when the tenant sets up his own title or when he sets up somebody else's title, the
principle of Article 115 of the Qanun- e-Shahadat Order was applied and the tenant was ordered
to be rejected. The reason therefore, is not far to seek. In all the judgments, dominant feature has
been that in ejectment matters, the question of title is not relevant. We may like to add that if a
dispute arises between the two rival contenders for title to the property, the tenant has no locus
standi to intervene and it is for the appropriate Court to resolve the dispute. We have also noted
some peculiar features of this case in the paragraph 7 ante. Undisputedly, the petitioners -tenants
were inducted in the premises after the superstructure had been raised by the landlord and in the
letter dated 27 -10-1998 of the Federal Government respondent -landlord has been accepted as
"allottee/ occupant". Not only by virtue of induction in the property by the respondent but also
on the basis of the facts noted above there was absolutely no justification for the petitioners -
tenants to repudiate the title of the landlord. It appears that by paying rent to the E.T.P.B. the
tenants are making a ground ultimately to claim sale of the property in their favour. Thus, we
hold that principle of Article 115 of the Qanun -e-Shahadat Order was applicable to the facts and
circumstances of the case and unless the petitioners had surrendered possession, they could not
repudiate landlord's title."
The revenue documents produced by respondents Nos.3 and 4 are not related to an area
of 2245 sq. ft being Municipal No.18- 4/111- 1292, as such same cannot be taken into
consideration, therefore, the contention of learned counsel for the respondents has no substance.
The relationship of landlord and tenant stood established through Exh.A/1- , Exh.A/4- B
coupled with divergent stance taken by the respondents, which could be termed contemptuous.
19. As according to Exh.R/4- A, the respondent No.1 claimed purchase of the property in
question from the previous owner and in Para No.6 of his rejoinder, it i s alleged that the
respondent No.3 was inducted by him in the premises in question, therefore, in view of the
dictum laid down by the apex Court in case supra, as discussed hereinabove, the respondents are
required to hand over the vacant possession of the property in question to the appellants and then
seek the remedy from Civil Court, whereafter they would have an easy access to the premises, in
case they prevail, therefore, the impugned judgment and decree is not sustainable.
In view of the above, the appeal is allowed, the impugned judgment and decree dated 6th
April, 2010 passed by the trial Court is set aside and the eviction application filed by the
appellants is accepted. Consequently, the respondents are directed to hand over the vacant
possessio n of the premises in question to the appellants within a period of two (2) months.
Decree sheet be drawn.
AG/68/Bal. Appeal allowed.This judgment is reproduced from a publicly available source for informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. If you believe this listing contains an error,
let us know.