Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 ––– ---Art. 199---Writ jurisdiction---Challenge to concurrent findings of Rent Controller and Appellate Court--- Petitioners challenged concurrent decisions directing ejectment and payment of outstanding rent---Petition dismissed as findings were based on admitted facts and non-compliance with mandatory provisions under section 13(6) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959---Held, constitutional jurisdiction cannot be invoked to revisit concurrent findings based on law and facts unless findings are patently illegal or perverse. (b) West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 ––– ---S. 13(6)---Default in rent payment---Mandatory deposit of arrears--- Failure to deposit arrears of rent as directed by Rent Controller led to dismissal of petitioners' defense and issuance of ejectment orders---Held, non-compliance with rent deposit order without plausible explanation constitutes deliberate default, warranting eviction. (c) Tenancy Law ––– ---Subletting without landlord’s consent---Liability of unauthorized sub-tenants--- Petitioners Nos.1 and 2, direct tenants, admitted to unauthorized subletting to Petitioners Nos.3 and 4, who further transferred possession to unauthorized sub-tenants (Petitioners Nos.5 and 6) without the landladies’ consent---Held, unauthorized sub-tenants possess no independent rights and must vacate the premises alongside defaulting tenants---Reliance placed on Haji Said Wahab Khan v. Amjad Ali and others (2005 SCMR 840) and Messrs Noorani Travels Karachi v. Muhammad Hanif (2008 SCMR 1395). (d) Rent Agreement ––– ---Terms of tenancy agreement---Construction obligations and rent increase--- Petitioners Nos.1 and 2 failed to fulfill contractual obligations regarding construction of the rented premises, leading to disputes with sub-tenants over expenses---Court held that construction costs incurred by unauthorized sub-tenants are a civil liability inter se among petitioners and do not affect the rights of landladies. (e) Execution and Possession ––– ---Recovery of possession and arrears of rent--- Petitioners directed to vacate premises and pay outstanding rent within one month---Landladies entitled to file execution petition for recovery of possession and arrears if petitioners fail to comply---Enhanced rent for delayed possession not granted due to respondents’ failure to raise the issue before appellate forums. -----Cited Cases: Haji Said Wahab Khan v. Amjad Ali and others, 2005 SCMR 840 Messrs Noorani Travels Karachi v. Muhammad Hanif, 2008 SCMR 1395 Rukhsana Begum v. TNT Express Worldwide Pakistan (Pvt.) Ltd., 2005 SCMR 1398 State Life Insurance Corporation of Pakistan v. Sami-Ur-Rehman and others, 2018 SCMR 443 -----Disposition: Petition dismissed; petitioners directed to vacate premises and pay all outstanding dues within one month. Respondents may seek execution for recovery of possession and arrears.

Summary: Bail granted ---- The petitioner, sought pre-arrest bail after the Lahore High Court, Lahore, declined his request. An FIR (No. 309/2023) was lodged against him on January 15, 2023, at Police Station Nishtar Colony, Lahore, under sections 448, 440, 511, 427, 148, 149, PPC. The FIR alleged that on the said date, the petitioner and co-accused, armed with firearms, forcibly entered the housing society of the complainant, fired indiscriminately, injuring a passerby, and damaging property including the gate and building of the office. ----Issues: Whether the petitioner was falsely implicated in the FIR due to mala fide intentions and ulterior motives. Whether the presence of family conflicts and cross-versions of the incident warranted the granting of pre-arrest bail. Whether the lack of police investigation into the alleged injury of a passerby raised further questions about the petitioner’s guilt. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: False Implication and Family Conflicts: The court recognized the ongoing family conflicts over the ownership and management of the Formanites Housing Society, founded by the petitioner’s late father. Given the potential for malafide intentions and false implications arising from these disputes, the court found merit in the petitioner’s claim of being falsely implicated. Cross-Versions and Further Inquiry: The court noted that in cases of cross-versions arising from the same incident, bail is typically granted to allow further inquiry. The petitioner alleged that the complainant party was the aggressor, which required a detailed investigation to ascertain the truth. Precedents cited included Fazal Muhammad (1976 SCMR 391), Shafiq-ur-Rehman (1972 SCMR 682), and Khalid Mahmood (2013 SCMR 1415). Lack of Investigation into Injury: The FIR mentioned an injury to passerby Zeeshan Haider due to the firing, but the police conducted no investigation into this injury. This omission raised further doubts about the prosecution’s case, leading the court to classify the matter as one requiring further inquiry. ----Outcome: The Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal and allowed it. The impugned order of the Lahore High Court dated November 13, 2023, was set aside. The petitioner was granted pre-arrest bail upon furnishing surety bonds of Rs. 100,000 and a personal recognizance bond of the same amount. The court emphasized that these observations were tentative and that the trial court was free to adjudicate the case independently based on its merits. -----Citations/Precedents: Fazal Muhammad (1976 SCMR 391) Shafiq-ur-Rehman (1972 SCMR 682) Khalid Mahmood (2013 SCMR 1415) ----Notes: The case highlights the importance of a thorough investigation, especially when there are cross-versions and potential false implications due to family disputes. The decision underscores the principle that bail should be granted in cases requiring further inquiry.

Summary: This case involves Ghulam Akhtar and Muhammad Iqbal, where Iqbal filed a suit for specific performance based on a written agreement to sell a property dated June 1, 2013. Iqbal claimed that after paying Rs. 100,000 as earnest money and receiving possession of the property, Akhtar refused to execute the sale deed. Akhtar contested the validity of the agreement and the transfer of possession, claiming the agreement was fraudulent. The trial court initially dismissed the suit, but the appellate court reversed this decision and decreed the suit in favor of Iqbal, leading Akhtar to file the present civil revision. ---Issues: 1. Whether the appellate court erred in overturning the trial court's decision by allegedly not properly evaluating the evidence. 2. The legitimacy of the original sale agreement and the procedural integrity followed in the judicial process. 3. The equitable considerations in enforcing the agreement, including the respondent's readiness and ability to complete the financial terms of the agreement. ---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, scrutinized the discrepancies between the trial and appellate court's decisions. The court found that while procedural irregularities existed, such as the agreement not being scribed by an authorized person, the preponderance of evidence supported the execution of the agreement by Akhtar. Despite his denial of signing the agreement, his admission during cross-examination and lack of legal action against the alleged forcible possession taken by Iqbal undermined his claims. However, the court also considered the financial aspect, acknowledging that Iqbal retained possession of the property for seven years while only paying a small fraction of the agreed price. To equitably resolve the matter, the court directed Iqbal to deposit an additional Rs. 2 million to reflect the property's current market value and inflation, upon failure of which the appellate court's decree would be nullified, and the petition treated as accepted. ---Citations/Precedents: Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, Articles 2A and 189. Specific Relief Act, 1877, Section 22. Cases referred: "Enayat Sons (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Government of Pakistan through Secretary, Finance and others" (2007 SCMR 969) "Muhammad Hafeez and another v. District Judge, Karachi East and another" (2008 SCMR 398) "Hamood Mehmood v. Mst. Shabana Ishaque and others" (2017 SCMR 2022) "Muhammad Siddique vs. Muhammad Akram" (2000 SCMR 533)

Summary: Order XLI rule 5(2) C.P.C, Essential conditions. The object of order XLI rule 5(2) of CPC, Order XLI, rule 5, C.P.C., is that mere filing of an appeal does not operate as a stay of the decree. The Appellate Court, is, however, empowered to order the stay of the execution of such decree meaning thereby, that the decree-holder may not be deprived of the relief to which he has been found entitled by the Court, and at the same time to ensure that by execution of the decree the appeal is not rendered infructuous. Order XLI rule 5(2) C.P.C could not be invoked in favour of applicant for the reasons: (i) that there is a reasonable delay in filing of application, (ii) the application has not been appended with the execution application, the execution of which was sought to be suspended as without execution application, it could not be stayed in view of the dicta laid down in the case of Ibrahim and others versus Muhammad Ismail A.H. Memon Collector of Lasbela and others (PLD 1066 (W.P) Karachi 371); (iii) Civil Petition for leave to appeal is already pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court; (iv) the provision of order XLI rule 5 C.P.C deals with the subject of appeal which is the continuation of suit but the revision petition being not the continuation of suit has limited scope; and lastly. (v) the applicants could not point out irreparable loss as the loss which could be estimated in terms of money is not an irreparable loss. Reference may be made to the case of Muhammad Siddique and 59 others Versus Pakistan Engineering Company (1986 PLC 316)

Summary: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- --- S. 561-A--- Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 406/468/471--- Constitution of Paksitan (1973), ---Quashing of F.I.R. by High Court---Validity---High Court had no jurisdiction whatsoever to take the role of the investigating agency and to quash the F.I.R. while exercising constitutional power under Art. 199 of the Constitution or under S.561-A, Cr.P.C. The allegations against the petitioners, on the face of it, to disclose commission of a cognizable offence and the contentions of learned counsel for the petitioner relate to factual controversy, which can only be determined after recording pro and contra evidence and this exercise cannot be done in constitutional jurisdiction of this Court. The petitioner has the right to put his defence before the Investigating Officer and if the allegations put-forth by the complainant are found false, the Investigating Officer can proceed against him in accordance with law. Moreso, the complainant has come up with certain allegations and justice demands that he may be given an opportunity to prove the same. Thus, in the circumstances, ordinary course of trial is not to be deflected by resorting to quashment of the FIR. ----S. 561-A---Quashing of FlR---Scope---Partial quashment--Permissibility---Petition for quashing of FIR was filed by only one of the accused persons, and allowing partial quashment of FIR for one accused was not permissible under law.-----In the Peshawar High Court, Bannu Bench, a constitutional petition was filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, read with section 5(1-A) of the Cr.P.C., seeking the quashment of FIR No. 245 dated 26.03.2024. The FIR was registered under Sections 302/34 of the PPC at the Saddar District Bannu police station, concerning allegations of a cognizable offence. The petitioner's counsel contended that the charges were factually disputable, which should be resolved through standard trial procedures rather than constitutional jurisdiction. Issues 1. Whether the FIR discloses the commission of a cognizable offence. 2. The appropriateness of quashing the FIR at the constitutional petition stage. 3. Whether the court should intervene in the police's investigation duties as prescribed by law. ---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The court held that the allegations in the FIR do indeed disclose the commission of a cognizable offence and that the factual disputes raised by the petitioner should be addressed through conventional trial processes, not through constitutional petitions. The court emphasized that the role of the judiciary is complementary to, not overlapping with, the police functions, as established in prior case law. The court refused to quash the FIR, stating that it must be investigated thoroughly by the police as per statutory duties outlined in Sections 154 and 156 of the Cr.P.C. It also highlighted that interference in the early stages of police investigation is unwarranted and could potentially prejudice the investigation’s fairness and integrity. Consequently, the petition was dismissed in limine as it lacked merit. -----Citations/Precedents: Brig. (Retd.) Imtiaz Ahmad Vs. the Govt of Pakistan (1994 SCMR 2141): This case reinforces the separation of functions between the judiciary and police, stating that judicial intervention in police investigations is generally prejudicial and beyond jurisdiction unless exceptional circumstances exist. Director General, Anti-Corruption Establishment, Lahore and others v. Muhammad Akram Khan and others (PLD 2013 SC 401): Highlighted that partial quashing of an FIR concerning only one of the accused when multiple accused are involved is legally untenable. Naeem Abbas Vs Federal Investigation Agency (FIA), Islamabad and 7 others (2015 P.Cr.L.J 1592 Lahore): Supported the principle that FIR quashment should not be granted on a selective basis to only one of multiple co-accused unless all involved parties are considered.

Summary: West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959. Section 13(2)(ii)(a)----- A subtenant has no independent right of his own and has to stand or fall, sail or sink with the tenant and has no right to claim tenancy or pay rent or file appeal against orders of ejectment, because sub-tenant who has taken the possession or put in possession without the consent of landlord is unauthorized possessor of the property. It is pertinent to mention here that at the spot, petitioners No.5 & 6 are in possession of the rented premises with no direct relationship with respondents No.1 & 2 but as sub-tenants of petitioners No.3 & 4 who too were sub-tenants of petitioners No.1 & 2 and in such an eventuality, the petitioners No.5 & 6 are directed to hand over the vacant possession to respondent No.1 & 2 (landladies). No doubt, petitioners No.3 & 4 were not direct tenants of the respondents/ landladies but it is an admitted position that they have entered into rented premises without the consent and permission of the landladies and it is also admitted fact that they have transferred the possession to petitioners No. 5 & 6 and that too without any permission by the landladies thus, in such circumstances they (petitioners No. 3,4 & 5,6 cannot resist the ejectment of the creation of their tenancy with petitioners No. 1, 2 who were the direct tenants of the landladies, hence the plea of the learned counsel for petitioners No. 3, 4 is misconceived.

Summary: Order XLI rule 5(2) C.P.C, Essential conditions: The object of order XLI rule 5(2) of CPC, Order XLI, rule 5, C.P.C., is that mere filing of an appeal does not operate as a stay of the decree. The Appellate Court, is, however, empowered to order the stay of the execution of such decree meaning thereby, that the decree-holder may not be deprived of the relief to which he has been found entitled by the Court, and at the same time to ensure that by execution of the decree the appeal is not rendered infructuous. Order XLI rule 5(2) C.P.C could not be invoked in favour of applicant for the reasons: (i) that there is a reasonable delay in filing of application, (ii) the application has not been appended with the execution application, the execution of which was sought to be suspended as without execution application, it could not be stayed in view of the dicta laid down in the case of Ibrahim and others versus Muhammad Ismail A.H. Memon Collector of Lasbela and others (PLD 1066 (W.P) Karachi 371); (iii) Civil Petition for leave to appeal is already pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court; (iv) the provision of order XLI rule 5 C.P.C deals with the subject of appeal which is the continuation of suit but the revision petition being not the continuation of suit has limited scope; and lastly. (v) the applicants could not point out irreparable loss as the loss which could be estimated in terms of money is not an irreparable loss. Reference may be made to the case of Muhammad Siddique and 59 others Versus Pakistan Engineering Company (1986 PLC 316)

Summary: Amendment in pleadings --- The petitioner challenged the order dated 02.03.2024 by the Additional District Judge, Sialkot, which allowed the respondent's application for amendment of pleadings and remanded the consolidated judgment and decree of the Trial Court dated 30.03.2023. The respondent had filed suits for declarations and permanent injunctions concerning property ownership and alleged unauthorized constructions by other parties, including the petitioner. ---Issues: 1. Whether the amendment of pleadings changing the nature and character of the original suits was permissible under the law. 2. Whether the appellate court's decision to remand the case for fresh consideration post-amendment was justified. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The High Court held that the amendment sought by the respondent, which included a claim for possession based on alleged dispossession during the pendency of the suits, did not alter the fundamental nature of the original suits. It was deemed a necessary clarification of the relief sought, which is permissible under the law if it helps determine the real questions in controversy and does not inflict injustice upon the other party. ----Outcome: The petition was dismissed, upholding the lower appellate court’s order to allow amendment of the pleadings and remand the case for further proceedings. The court emphasized that such amendments serve the interests of justice by clarifying the issues for determination without fundamentally changing the case's nature. ----Citations/Precedents: Saddaruddin (deceased) through LRs v. Sultan Khan (deceased) through LRs and others, 2021 SCMR 642 Sultan Muhammad and another v. Muhammad Qasim and others, 2010 SCMR 1630 Mst. Arshan Bi through Mst. Fatima Bi and others v. Maula Bakhsh through Mst. Ghulam Safoor and others, 2003 SCMR 318 Altaf Hussain alias Mushtaq Ahmed v. Muhammad Din and others, 2010 CLC 1646 Asif Hussain and another v. Mst. Bakho alias Bakhto (deceased) through Legal Heirs, 2021 YLR 573 Khalid & Company through Proprietor v. Cantonment Board, Malir through President, Commander Station Headquarter, Malir Cantonment and Cantonment Executive Officer, Karachi, PLD 2002 Karachi 502 Muhammad Anwar and another v. Additional District Judge, Toba Tek Singh and 4 others, 2012 CLC 1976 Muhammad Mian v. Syed Shamimullah and 2 others, 1995 SCMR 69 Ahmad Din v. Muhammad Shafi, PLD 1971 SC Zubaida Bibi v. Hashmat Bibi, 1993 SCMR 1882 Muhammad Saleem Naseem v. Additional District Judge, Dunyapur and 12 others, 2021 CLC 87 Ahmed Bakhsh v. Imam Bakhsh and others, 2023 CLC 1076