Summary: (a) Maintainability of Review Petition under Section 12(2), CPC—Requirements for Pleading Fraud and Misrepresentation A review under Section 12(2), CPC requires a prima facie demonstration of fraud, misrepresentation, or lack of notice. The petitioner alleged he was not served but failed to challenge the validity of his own signatures on the service notice. The Court observed that service had been established through documentary proof (courier receipt and signed notice), and the petitioner’s failure to dispute the authenticity of the signatures defeated his plea. → Held: Allegation of fraud and misrepresentation was baseless. Burden of disproving service was not discharged. (b) Applicability of CPC in Rent Controller Proceedings—Use of Equitable Principles The Court reaffirmed that while the CPC does not strictly apply to rent proceedings under the Islamabad Rent Restriction Ordinance, 2001, Rent Controllers are permitted to adopt equitable principles of the CPC where necessary for justice. → Held: Procedural objections regarding application of CPC were without merit; service through affixation and ex parte proceedings were valid. Cited Cases: Muhammad Tariq Khan v. Kh. Muhammad Jawad Asami (2007 SCMR 818) Saeed Pervaiz v. Syed Maqsood Hassan (2008 SCMR 568) Khadim Mohyuddin v. Rehmat Ali (PLD 1965 SC 459) Ayub Khan v. Fazal Haq (PLD 1976 SC 422) (c) Effect of Expiry of Lease Agreement—Tenancy Without Renewal The lease agreement had expired and its renewal was contingent upon mutual understanding, which was absent. The Court held that the use of the word “shall” in the renewal clause could not override the requirement of mutual consent. The tenant’s continued occupation after expiry, without landlord’s express consent, rendered him liable for eviction under Section 17(2)(ii)(b) of the Ordinance. → Held: Occupation after expiry of lease without mutual agreement constitutes infringement of tenancy terms and justifies eviction. Cited Case: Waqar Zafar Bakhtawari v. Haji Mazhar Hussain Shah (PLD 2018 SC 81) (d) Cross-reference on 12(2) CPC Proceedings—No Mandatory Framing of Issues The Court held that framing of issues and conducting a full trial under Section 12(2), CPC is not mandatory. If pleadings themselves are sufficient to decide the application, the court may summarily dispose it of. → Held: Dismissal of Section 12(2) application without trial or framing of issues was proper in the facts of this case. Cited Case: Farman Ullah v. Latif-ur-Rehman (2015 SCMR 1708) Disposition: Petition dismissed. No interference warranted with the Rent Controller’s dismissal of the Section 12(2), CPC application.

Summary: Article 199(1)(a)(ii) of the Constitution deals with the writ of certiorari, which can be issued in the following circumstances: - (i) when an inferior Court or tribunal acts without jurisdiction or in excess of it or fails to exercise it. (ii) when the Court or tribunal acts illegally in the exercise of its undoubted jurisdiction, as when it decides without giving an opportunity to the parties to be heard, or violates the principles of natural justice. (iii) if there is an error apparent on the face of the record. 2009 SCMR 210 Impugned action of cancellation of lease is founded on a public purpose and lease propert is not the only property, which has been earmarked for the said purpose. As already observed that powers are vested with the Federal Government to take over the possession of any evacuee property for the public purpose, so the determination of suitability of property clearly vests with the executive/government. No fetters can be put to the powers of the executive to utilize such property for public welfare only on the whims and caprice of the lessee. Needless to observe that this whole exercise will not cause prejudice to the rights, if any, of respondent No.7 as the lease property is now no more available. The nutshell of above discussion is that under the circumstances impugned order of cancellation of lease of the petitioner cannot be termed as without lawful authority as per contemplation of Article 199(1)(a)(ii) of the ?Constitution?.

Summary: Order---The appellant's argument was centered around the fact that he had been granted a lease for a plot of 204.06 square yards by the Karachi Metropolitan Corporation (KMC) on 31 August 1989. He claimed that he should have also been leased an additional 40.56 square yards, which had instead been granted to respondent No. 1 on 21 May 1985. The Appellate Court initially ruled in favor of the appellant's claim, but the High Court overturned this decision and restored the Trial Court's judgment, citing the issue of limitation.The appellant's attempt to seek the same relief through a suit filed in 1991 had been dismissed due to non-prosecution. The present suit, filed in 1995, was also dismissed as time-barred. The Court found that the suit, seeking a declaration and cancellation of a lease granted in 1985, was indeed time-barred, and both the Trial Court and the High Court's decisions were upheld.Another crucial issue addressed in the case was whether the appellant could claim entitlement to a plot that was not in his possession. Both the appellant and respondent No. 1 were granted leases by the KMC for plots under the title "Lease for Plot by Regularization of Unauthorised Possession." The appellant was not in possession of the land for which respondent No. 1 had been granted a lease. The appellant contended that respondent No. 1 was his tenant, which the Court acknowledged.However, the Court held that even if respondent No. 1 was the appellant's tenant, the appellant could not claim leasehold rights over land situated in a declared Katchi Abadie (informal settlements). The law that regularizes such settlements is intended to benefit the landless. The Court emphasized that the appellant had no legal character to assert ownership over land that neither belonged to him nor was in his possession. The appellant's attempt to exploit land ownership rights by claiming possession through a tenant was against public policy.In conclusion, the Court dismissed the appeal based on the aforementioned reasons. As the proceedings were ex-parte, no order was given regarding costs.

Summary: Background: The petitioner, a tenant, filed a constitutional petition against orders passed by the Special Judge (Rent) and the Additional District Judge, which allowed the eviction of the petitioner from a rented property. The eviction was sought by the respondent, the property owner, under Section 19 of the Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009, due to the petitioner’s violation of the lease agreement and refusal to vacate the premises after the lease expired. The petitioner argued that the eviction application was filed with mala fide intent and that the tenancy had been verbally extended until 2025. -----Issues: 1- Whether the eviction orders were justified based on the expiry of the lease agreement. ----2- Whether the petitioner’s claim of verbal lease extension until 2025 and the alleged additional security payment were legally tenable. ----3- Whether the violation of the lease terms, including the failure to vacate after the lease’s expiry and the alleged default in rent payments, warranted eviction. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The court upheld the eviction orders, finding that: The lease agreement between the parties expired, and there was no evidence or legal basis to support the petitioner’s claim of verbal lease extension or payment of additional security. The law requires leases longer than 11 months to be in writing and registered, which was not the case here. The petitioner’s failure to vacate the premises after the lease’s expiry violated Section 13(d) of the Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009, and clause 12 of the lease agreement, which obligated the tenant to vacate after the lease period. The petitioner was also in default of rent payments, as he did not deposit the rent on time, in violation of both the lease agreement and a court order. The court found that the lower courts correctly applied the law, and the petitioner’s defense lacked legal substance. The constitutional petition was dismissed, and the petitioner was granted 30 days to vacate the premises. -----Citations/Precedents: Rana Abdul Hameed Talib v. Additional District Judge, Lahore and others (PLD 2013 SC 775) Waqar Zafar Bakhtawari and others v. Haji Mazhar Hussain Shah and others (PLD 2018 SC 81) Habib Bank Limited v. Dr. Munawar Ali Siddiqui (1991 SCMR 1185) Government of Sind through Secretary and Director General, Excise and Taxation and another v. Muhammad Shafi and others (PLD 2015 SC 380) Mirza Book Agency through Managing Partner and others v. Additional District Judge, Lahore and others (2013 SCMR 1520) Mst. Amina Begum and others v. Mehar Ghulam Dastagir (PLD 1978 SC 220)

Summary: The case involves M/s. Muhammad Noor Dairies, the respondent, who applied for Lease Finance from ORIX Leasing Pakistan Limited, the appellant. The Lease Finance Agreements were dated 26.06.2006, 27.10.2007, and 31.07.2008. The dispute primarily revolves around outstanding monthly lease rentals, outstanding additional lease rentals and charges, and per month compensation. The trial court partially allowed the outstanding monthly lease rentals after deduction of security but disallowed additional lease rentals, charges, and further compensation. The appellant challenges this decision, arguing that the remaining amount should have been allowed. The appeal has been pending since 2014, and the respondents did not appear, leading to an ex-parte proceeding against them. The judgment discusses the legal provisions related to additional lease rentals and compensation, specifically referring to Article 18 of the Lease Agreements. The court emphasizes Section 3(2) of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, which outlines the duty of the customer and the consequences of default. The court concludes that the claimed compensation by the appellant, including additional lease rentals and further compensation, is not justified. The court dismisses the appeal, upholding the decision of the learned Banking Court. The appellant's claim for a refund of the security deposit is also rejected based on the terms of the Lease Agreement. The court clarifies that the learned Banking Court had the jurisdiction to disallow partial claims without granting leave to appear and defend, citing relevant legal precedents.Muhammad Farooq Azam versus Bank Al-Falah Limited and others (2015 C L D 1439): This case appears to provide guidance on the issue of penalties and charges imposed by financial institutions, ensuring that such charges are reasonable and in accordance with the law. Habib Bank Ltd. versus Karachi Pipe Mills Ltd. (2006 C L D 842): This case sets a precedent regarding mark-up based financing and prohibits financial institutions from charging additional sums beyond the original contracted amount, especially in cases of delay in repayment. Messrs United Bank Ltd. through Authorized attorneys versus M. Mubeen Khan (2012 C L D 1995): This case clarifies the entitlement of financial institutions to cost of funds from the date of default, emphasizing that customers should not be penalized twice for the same default. Emirates Global Islamic Bank Ltd. versus Muhammad Abdul Salam Khan (2013 C L D 1291): This case reinforces the principle that financial institutions cannot claim charges or amounts to which the customer had not agreed. Dr. Faiz Rasool and others versus The Askari Bank Limited through Branch Manager/authorized Authority (2015 C L D 1710): This case affirms that penalty charges cannot be claimed by financial institutions and that any charges imposed should be justified and agreed upon by the parties involved. Apollo Textile Mills Ltd. and others versus Soneri Bank Ltd. (2012 C L D 337): This Supreme Court case clarifies the jurisdiction of banking courts regarding the disallowance of claims without granting leave to appear and defend, providing legal guidance on such matters.

Summary: PLJ 2021 Islamabad 195 Present Tariq Mehmood Jahangiri J GHULAM AHMAD QURESHI - - Petitioner versus COMMISSIONER CDA SECTOR G - 11 ISLAMABAD and another - - Respondents WP No 4158 of 2016 decided on 2932021 Islamabad Residential Sector Zoning (Building Control) Regulations 2005 - - - - - - Regln 217 (1) (2) (3) (4) - - House was rented out for residential purposes - - Lease agreement - - Non - conforming uses - - Violation of building by - laws - - Legal notice - - Ejectment petition - - Accepted - - vacation of house by tenant - - Imposition of fine - - Responsibility of - - Filing of appeal dismissed - - Challenge to - - According to regulations ownerallottee is responsible to follow building By - laws of Capital Development Authority - - In instant case tenant had left premises before 15122014 and impugned order was passed on 29092016 ie after about 2 years of vacating house by tenant so according to law tenant cannot be held responsible by CDA for any violation after vacation of premises - - It is sole responsibility of ownerallottee to rent out premises for residential purposes only as and when any violation of building By - laws has committed by tenant ownerallottee is bound to get premises vacated or to get violation removed by tenant but in instant case before issuance of notice by CDA ownerallottee has not taken any action against his tenant for putting residential house to non - confirming use which reflects that said violation was carried out with consent of ownerallottee - - In regulations words owner and occupant are mentioned who are liable for conviction of fine etc so both are responsible but if tenantoccupant has vacated premises then only owner is liable for penalties - - Petition was dismissed [Pp 198 199] A B Constitution of Pakistan 1973 - - - - - - Art 199 - - Jurisdiction Concurrent orders - - It is well settled that Certiorari is only available to quash a decision for an error of law - - It will also be issued for correcting errors of jurisdiction when an inferior Court or a tribunal acts without jurisdiction or in excess of its jurisdiction or fails to exercise its jurisdiction or where Court or a tribunal acts illegally in exercise of its undoubted jurisdiction and it decides a matter in violation of principle of natural justice - - High Court while issuing a writ of certiorari acts in exercise of supervisory and not appellate jurisdiction - - High Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction will not review findings of facts reached by inferior Court or a tribunal - - Petitioner made no submission on point as to how concurrent orders passed by Court of Deputy Commissioner CDA dated 26032014 and Court of Deputy Commissioner ICT exercising powers of Commissioner CDA Islamabad dated 29092016 were consequence of an error of law or without jurisdiction or in excess of jurisdiction [Pp 199 202] C D 2020 SCMR 1041 PLD 2020 SC 1 2019 SCMR 919 Malik Muhammad Zulfiqar Advocate for Petitioner Mr Rehan Seerat Advocate for RespondentsJudgement Result:Petition dismissed

Summary: Background:The case involves Civil Petition No. 4500 of 2017 and several miscellaneous applications brought before the Supreme Court of Pakistan, concerning the development and management of infrastructure in Islamabad. The petitioner, Pak Gulf Construction (Pvt) Limited, raised issues regarding the jurisdiction and responsibilities of the Capital Development Authority (CDA) and the Municipal Corporation Islamabad (MCI) in relation to service roads and parking areas adjacent to the Centaurus Tower.Issues:Whether the jurisdictional confusion between the CDA and MCI regarding the lease of land for parking areas violates the petitioner's rights.Whether the CDA has fulfilled its obligations, as directed by the court, regarding the maintenance of roads, garbage collection, sewage treatment, and tree plantation in Islamabad.Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The Chairman of the CDA informed the court that the area in question falls under the jurisdiction of the MCI, which had leased the land for parking purposes. He indicated that draft rules were being prepared to clarify the MCI's authority to lease such land, and the court directed the Deputy Attorney General to ensure the notification of these rules within one week.The Chairman of the CDA provided updates on various initiatives undertaken by the authority to improve infrastructure and environmental conditions in Islamabad. These initiatives included road repairs, garbage collection, sewage treatment, tree plantation, and the installation of portable toilets. The court acknowledged the progress made by the CDA and emphasized the importance of continued efforts to address these issues effectively.Citations/Precedents:Articles 18 and 25 of the Constitution of Pakistan: Protection of rights and equal treatment under the law.Relevant municipal laws and regulations governing the jurisdiction and responsibilities of the CDA and MCI.

Summary: if a property was not a factory at the time of creation of its lease,subsequent utilization thereof for Industrial purposes will not oust of the jurisdiction of the Rent Controller.

Summary: On the face of it, this lease was a mining lease for minor minerals for some area for a period of two years that later on may be submerged in the GBHP Barrage or adversely affected in any manner but the lease hold rights were not in perpetuity and could not be so being property of the Provincial Government.Lessee could avail remedy either for return of his bid amount deposited alongwith any improvements, if made but from the Mineral Department.It is the basic rule for weighing the preponderance of evidence in a civil matter to discuss the evidence but it has to be used in corroboration of material facts alleged by a party but when a party does not appear in Court as a witness not only that a presumption could be drawn against him within the contemplation of Article 129(g) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 but it has to be accepted that the case is based on no evidence. The pleadings in objection petition and statements of officials could not be considered as evidence in the instant case when the respondents/objectors have opted not to appear as witnesses in support of their objection petitions perhaps to avoid facing the cross examination in Court.

Summary: It is established law that question whether an instrument amount to a lease or is only an agreement to obtain a lease depends on the intention of the parties, which is to be gathered from the instrument as whole, the circumstances in which it was executed and even from the conduct of the parties.