Summary: Following questions of law were raised: i. What is the effect of failure on part of an ejectment petitioner to give concise statement in terms of Section 19(3) of the Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009 ("the Act") regarding the period for which he claims arrears of rent? ii. Whether strained and hostile relationship between the landlord and the tenant developed, on account of eviction proceedings initiated by the landlord, is a valid ground for eviction of the tenant, under the Act? In relation to the eviction proceedings initiated under the Act, the term concise statement referred in Section 19(3) of the Act, mandates the ejectment petitioner to give the details of the allegation against the respondent and if the allegation of default in payment of monthly rent is made, sufficient details pertaining to the date from which the default occurred as also the claim as on the date of filing of the ejectment petition becomes sine qua non of such eviction petition to succeed. In the present case, it is pertinent to note that the respondent in his eviction petition has not given any detail of the period of default of rent, hence, the same was fatal. Further directing eviction of the petitioner on the ground that the relationship between the parties has become strained and environment of distrust between the parties has emerged as said reason does not constitute a ground of eviction contemplated under Section 15 of the Act. If such like grounds for eviction are allowed to be transplanted, this would amount to the Courts traversing beyond their domain of statutory adherence. In present case, the Appellate Court below has travelled beyond the legislative wisdom while passing the impugned judgment. 1079Jail Appeal 58520/20 Muhammad Umar etc. Vs The State etc Mr. Justice Muhammad Amjad Rafiq 14- 05- 2024 2024 LHC 2718 PLJ 2024 Cr.C 943 (Lahore High Court, Lahore), 2025 YLR 197 (Lahore)

Summary: Background:This Supreme Court case involves multiple Intra Court Appeals (ICA Nos. 2, 3, and 4 of 2023) arising from Constitution Petition No. 21 of 2022 and associated matters. The appeals involve various government entities and Imran Ahmed Khan Niazi as key parties. The primary contention revolves around the constitutionality of certain amendments to the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, as altered by the National Accountability (Amendment) Acts of 2022, which were challenged by Mr. Niazi. The amendments in question were initially promulgated as ordinances during Mr. Niazi's tenure as Prime Minister. The case addresses the legality of the Supreme Court's previous decision-making processes and the constitutionality of the legislative amendments.----Issues:Whether the previous judgment was null due to the bench not being properly constituted under the Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Act, 2023.The maintainability of Mr. Niazi's Constitution Petition under Article 184(3) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973.The legality of the amendments to the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, considering they largely mirror provisions from ordinances enacted under Mr. Niazi's administration.The constitutional scope of legislative power in altering the operations and investigative scope of the National Accountability Bureau (NAB).----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The court has yet to issue a final judgment. Preliminary issues discussed include the appropriateness of the bench's constitution, the maintainability of the petition, and arguments regarding the procedural and substantive aspects of the amendments to the National Accountability Ordinance. The court has directed further engagement from both Mr. Niazi and the legal representatives of the appellants, with particular emphasis on addressing the constitutional and legal challenges presented by the amendments. --- To come up on Thursday, 16 May 2024 at 11.30 am----Citations/Precedents:Raja Amer Khan v Federation of Pakistan (PLJ 2024 Supreme Court 114): This case upheld the constitutionality of the Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Act, 2023.Benazir Bhutto v Federation of Pakistan (PLD 1988 Supreme Court 416): This decision was cited to question the maintainability of Mr. Niazi?s petition given concurrent litigation.National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 and its amendments: Central legislative texts under scrutiny.Article 184(3) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973: Governs the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction in matters of public importance with respect to the enforcement of fundamental rights.

Summary: (a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) — O.XLI, R.33 & S.107 — Appellate Court — Scope of powers — Complete justice — Specific performance — Forged agreement — Role of Trial Court. Appellate Court, in exercise of powers under O.XLI, R.33 & S.107, C.P.C., can pass any order necessary to meet the ends of justice. Where the trial court had failed to properly appreciate evidence or exercise its powers to verify signatures on a disputed agreement to sell, the appellate court was justified in undertaking corrective measures. Trial Court did not frame appropriate issues despite clear pleadings regarding forgery and denial of execution of agreement to sell. The Appellate Court held that it could take steps such as verifying signatures through handwriting expert, summoning witnesses or comparing documents itself to ensure full adjudication of the matter. Cited Cases: • PLD 1989 SC 597 • 2012 SCMR 1258 • 1997 SCMR 1692 • 2005 CLC 686 (b) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877) — S.22 — Discretionary relief — Specific performance — Forged signature — Non-fulfilment of statutory proof — Refusal of decree. Claim for specific performance is discretionary in nature. Plaintiff must strictly fulfill requirements of law including attestation by two witnesses under Arts.17 & 79 of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984. Where execution of the agreement was doubtful, terms uncertain, and signature on the sale agreement was found to be printed (not handwritten) by the forensic report, no decree could be passed in plaintiff's favour. Relief under S.22 of the Specific Relief Act may be refused even where some evidence of agreement exists. Cited Cases: • 2019 SCMR 524 • 2015 SCMR 828 • 2017 SCMR 1696 • PLD 2015 SC 187 • 2012 SCMR 900 (c) Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 — Arts.17, 59, 79 & 84 — Documentary evidence — Specific performance — Agreement not proved — Signature found printed — Evidentiary value. Agreement to sell (Exh.P.1/1) presented by the plaintiff was found to bear signatures printed via artificial means. Handwriting expert’s report revealed clear indicators of non-genuineness. Though expert evidence under Art.59 is not conclusive, when considered in conjunction with contradictions in witness statements and lack of attestation under Art.79, such report became confirmatory of the defence plea. The Appellate Court was also entitled to make independent comparison of handwriting under Art.84. Cited Cases: • 2019 CLD 894 • 1996 SCMR 464 • 2022 SCMR 933 • 2010 YLR 358 (d) Evidence — Burden of proof — Article 117, Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 — Specific performance — Plaintiff's duty to prove execution. In suit for specific performance, burden lies on the plaintiff to prove execution of the agreement under Article 117. Plaintiff produced six witnesses; however, material contradictions, inability to confirm dates, execution, contents, and presence of marginal witnesses rendered the evidence unreliable. One key witness admitted the agreement was later cancelled. Others failed to corroborate execution as required under law. (e) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 — Art.10A — Fair trial — Judicial duty — Role of trial courts in evidence management — Directions issued. The Court highlighted trial courts’ obligation to proactively manage evidence and resolve issues timely to uphold Art.10A (right to fair trial). Trial courts must utilize all procedural tools such as directing admission/denial of documents, appointing commissions, recording better statements under Order X, and imposing costs under the Costs of Litigation Act, 2017 to avoid unnecessary delay. Judicial officers failing to ensure efficient trial may face monitoring and disciplinary proceedings. Cited Case: • 2022 CLC 1064 (f) Costs of Litigation Act, 2017 — Implementation — Trial court's failure to impose cost — Administrative recommendations made. The judgment emphasized enforcement of the Costs of Litigation Act, 2017. Trial courts are duty-bound to issue cost notices, record cost statements, and dissuade dilatory tactics. High Court may assign administrative judges to preliminarily screen suits for frivolity before assigning to trial. District Judges/MIT to monitor delays and report failures to the High Court for remedial action. (g) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) — S.151 — Inherent powers — Role of court in ensuring justice despite party defaults. Court has inherent powers under S.151 C.P.C. to go beyond formal pleadings where justice so demands. It may summon witnesses, call record, or direct forensic tests even without party request. The failure of trial court to exercise such powers in a case involving disputed agreement and alleged forgery was deprecated. (h) Civil Petition — Review application — Infructuousness — When review not maintainable. Where the relief sought in review petition has already been implemented or overtaken by subsequent developments, the application becomes infructuous. In present case, since the document had already been examined by handwriting expert pursuant to order under challenge, review application stood dismissed as infructuous. (i) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) — S.476 — Proceedings for forgery — Scope — Remand for fresh decision. In view of findings regarding forged signatures on the sale agreement, the petition seeking action under S.476 Cr.P.C. for initiating criminal proceedings was allowed. The matter was remanded to the concerned court for afresh decision on merits including recording of pro and contra evidence. Disposition: Regular First Appeal No. 512 of 2022 allowed. Judgment and decree dated 30.07.2022 set aside. Review Application No. 9 of 2024 dismissed as infructuous. Writ Petition No. 3742 of 2022 allowed; matter remanded for decision afresh under S.476 Cr.P.C.

Summary: Background:This Supreme Court of Pakistan case involves Suo Motu actions and Constitution Petitions concerning allegations of high-handed actions by the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) against journalists and the broader implications for freedom of the press and expression. The specific actions under scrutiny involve the abduction and assault of journalists Mr. Absar Alam, Mr. Matiullah Jan, and Mr. Asad Ali Toor, with the incidents leading to FIRs No. 127/2021 and No. 128/2021 lodged at the FIA Cyber Crime Wing, Lahore.----Issues:The adequacy and fairness of the police investigations into the abductions and assaults of the journalists.The procedural integrity in handling the cases, including the gathering and forensic analysis of evidence.The legal and systemic implications for freedom of the press in Pakistan, considering the alleged involvement of law enforcement and possibly higher authorities.----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The Supreme Court highlighted multiple failures in the investigation and procedural handling of the cases:Inadequate Investigation: The court noted serious lapses in the investigation, including failure to use geolocation data and other modern investigative techniques to trace the abductors or assailants and the mishandling of evidence such as surveillance footage.Forensic Failures: The court ordered a comprehensive forensic analysis of all available video recordings and stressed the need to investigate all potential leads, such as surveillance from sensitive buildings and national highway cameras.Procedural Incompetence: The court expressed dismay at the police's failure to diligently pursue leads or effectively use resources such as the Safe City Project's cameras or the National Highway Authority's cameras.The court directed a reconstitution of the investigation team, emphasizing the need for competent officers to take over and for the investigative process to be thorough and unbiased. It also highlighted the need for cooperation from all relevant authorities.----Citations/Precedents:National Cyber Crime Investigation Agency (Establishment, Powers and Functions) Rules, 2024: These rules were referenced in relation to the establishment of a dedicated agency to handle cybercrime, which could potentially play a role in investigating crimes against journalists.Prevention of Electronic Crime Act, 2016: This act was mentioned as the legal framework under which the new National Cyber Crime Investigation Agency operates.

Summary: Bail granted --- Background:Mst. Najma Bibi filed a petition under Section 491 Cr.P.C. seeking the recovery of her daughter-in-law, Mst. Nagina, from the alleged illegal confinement by the respondents. Najma Bibi claimed that police officials raided her house at night and took Mst. Nagina without any criminal case against her. When Najma Bibi contacted the police for her release, they demanded a bribe of Rs. 10,00,000 and threatened to involve her in multiple criminal cases.Issues:Whether Mst. Nagina was unlawfully detained by the police.Whether the evidence against Mst. Nagina was fabricated to justify her detention.----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The Court held that:The S.H.O. failed to produce Mst. Nagina in court as directed and instead submitted a report claiming she was involved in FIR No.754/24 dated 29.03.2024, under Section 392 PPC. The Court found discrepancies and contradictions in the police report, including the delay in recording the complainant?s supplementary statement and lack of evidence linking Mst. Nagina to the crime.The police failed to provide case diaries and other relevant records, leading the Court to conclude that the evidence against Mst. Nagina was fabricated.The liberty and dignity of a person are fundamental rights, and the detention of Mst. Nagina violated these rights. The Court noted that the police acted with malafide intent and abused their authority.The Court declared the detention of Mst. Nagina illegal and ordered her immediate release on bail, recognizing the insufficiency of evidence against her.The Court declared the detention of Mst. Nagina illegal and granted her post-arrest bail. The District Police Officer was directed to suspend the involved police officers and initiate departmental and criminal proceedings against them. The Court issued several directives to ensure that such unlawful detentions do not occur in the future.----Citations/Precedents:Kh. Salman Rafiq Case (PLD 2020 SC 456)Raja Muhammad Younis vs. The State (2013 SCMR 669)Alam Zeb vs. The State and others (PLD 2014 SC 760)Falak Sher vs. The State (1995 SCMR 1350)1993 SCMR 5501998 SCMR 6852011 SCMR 3792011 SCMR 1612003 SCMR 426

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Background:Mst. Bushra Imran Khan, convicted by Accountability Court No-I, Islamabad for offences under the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, and sentenced to 14 years of rigorous imprisonment, filed a writ petition in the Islamabad High Court. The petition challenges the legality of a notification issued by the Chief Commissioner, Islamabad Capital Territory, which designated her residential compound, "Khan House," as a sub-jail for her confinement. The petition contends that this notification was issued without proper authority and also argues against the conditions of her confinement.---Issues:1.Whether the Chief Commissioner, Islamabad, possesses the legal authority to declare a private residence as a sub-jail under Section 541 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (Cr.P.C.), especially in light of the powers generally reserved for Provincial Governments.2.Whether the petitioner's rights to a fair confinement are violated by her placement in a sub-jail instead of the designated Adyala Jail, where she was initially to be confined following her conviction.3.The legality and appropriateness of the notification declaring Khan House as a sub-jail, under the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Prisons Act, particularly concerning the procedural and substantive requirements under these statutes.----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The court held that the Chief Commissioner did not possess the authority to declare a private residence as a sub-jail. This power, as outlined in Section 541 Cr.P.C., typically resides with Provincial Governments unless explicitly stated otherwise by law. The notification was also found deficient as it lacked a valid legal basis and did not include necessary reasoning or adherence to procedural safeguards required for such a declaration.The court further noted that the conversion of Khan House into a sub-jail did not comply with the legal requirements for changing a prisoner?s place of confinement. Citing the Prisons Act, 1894 and pertinent case law, the court underscored that any such change must align with established legal protocols, and must not arbitrarily infringe on the prisoner's rights. The judgment emphasized that proper procedures were not followed, and the decision was made without sufficient reasons, thus violating the principles of natural justice and due process.Conclusively, the court ordered the revocation of the notification and directed the transfer of Mst. Bushra Imran Khan to Adyala Jail, where she would serve her remaining sentence under conditions prescribed by law, thus upholding the initial court's sentencing directives.---Citations/Precedents:Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (Sections 541, 383)Prisons Act, 1894 (Section 3)Pakistan Prisons Rules, 1978 (Rule 2(1)(b))Ali Mahmood Vs. The State (1974 P.Cr.L.J. 249)Sardar Ataullah Mengal Vs. The State (PLD 1965 Karachi 320)Muhammad Aslam Khakhi Vs. The State (PLD 2010 FSC 1)Muhammad Amin Muhammad Bashir Vs. Government of Pakistan (2015 SCMR 630)Khadim Hussain Vs. Secretary, Ministry of Human Rights (PLD 2020 Islamabad 268)Begum Shamim Afridi Vs. The Province of Punjab (PLD 1974 Lahore 120)Sunil Batra Vs. Delhi Administration (AIR 1980 SC 1579)Al-Jahad Trust Vs. Federation of Pakistan (1999 SCMR 1379)D. Bhuvan Mohan Patnaik Vs. State (AIR 1974 SC 2092)

Summary: Concurrent Note by Justice Ayesha Malik, and Justice Munib Akhtar (SCP 159) and dissenting note (2024 SCP 160)--- Concurrent Note: ruling regarding the Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Act, 2023, which was challenged by petitioners who argued that Parliament lacked the competence to legislate on the practice and procedure of the Supreme Court as this fell within the purview of Article 191 of the Constitution. This article grants the Supreme Court exclusive power to regulate its own practices and procedures.The Court dismissed the petitions, upholding the constitutionality of the Act overall, but declared Section 5(2) of the Act?which allowed for retrospective intra-court appeals against orders under Article 184(3) of the Constitution?as ultra vires (beyond the powers of) the Constitution. This was based on the majority opinion that Parliament does not have the authority to legislate on the court's procedures retrospectively, as this would infringe on the court?s constitutional autonomy and the independence of the judiciary.The majority opinion emphasized the importance of the judiciary's independence from legislative and executive branches, as fundamental to the integrity and function of judicial proceedings. The case highlighted the constitutional constraints on legislative powers concerning judicial practices and reinforced the judiciary's authority over its own procedural rules.----- Dissenting Note By Justice Shahid Waheed: ustice Shahid Waheed presents a dissenting opinion on the constitutionality of the Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Act, 2023, except for section 5(2). He asserts that the majority of the Court has misinterpreted the constitutional framework by upholding the Act, which he believes infringes upon the independence and proper functioning of the Supreme Court.Justice Waheed argues that the petitions challenging the Act are maintainable under Article 184 of the Constitution, which confers original jurisdiction to the Supreme Court on matters of public importance concerning the enforcement of fundamental rights. He contends that the Act, primarily due to its procedural regulations, unduly interferes with the Supreme Court's autonomy and could obstruct public access to justice, thus raising a matter of public importance that merits the Court's oversight.He disagrees with the government's assertion that the Act simply enforces rights such as fair trial, legal equality, and due process. Instead, Justice Waheed sees the Act as a veiled attempt to control the judicial processes and diminish the Court's independence. He refutes the preliminary government claim that the petitions do not enforce any fundamental rights, explaining that the Act's implications for judicial independence indeed relate to fundamental constitutional guarantees.Furthermore, Justice Waheed critiques the competence of Parliament to legislate on Supreme Court procedures. He analyzes constitutional provisions, particularly Article 191, and argues that it does not grant Parliament the authority to enact such laws. Instead, it limits the Supreme Court's rule-making to align with the Constitution and existing laws without overstepping into substantive law, which remains the domain of the legislature.Justice Waheed emphasizes the principle of separation of powers, asserting that allowing legislative control over Supreme Court procedures would violate this fundamental constitutional structure. He argues for the intrinsic need to maintain judicial independence from the legislative and executive branches, enabling the judiciary to function without external interference and uphold the rule of law.In conclusion, Justice Waheed calls for the Act to be declared ultra vires (beyond the powers) of the Constitution, advocating for a preservation of the judiciary's independence to ensure it continues to protect the fundamental rights and liberties of the public without legislative encroachment. His dissent aims to record a detailed legal reasoning for future reference, hoping it may guide corrections to what he perceives as a judicial error in upholding the Act.

Summary: The respondent's eviction petition was accepted and the petitioner was held liable to be evicted as also to pay arrears of rent. It is the case of the petitioner that he was inducted as tenant by the deceased father of the respondent and after demise of deceased father of the respondent, the petitioner continued to pay the rent to mother of the respondent, therefore, he has not committed any default and when relationship of landlord and tenant is denied between the petitioner and the respondent, neither the Trial Court nor this Court can direct the petitioner to deposit the monthly rent as held in "Mian Umar Ikram-ul-Haque v. Dr Shahida Hasnain and another" (2016 SCMR 2186). Held: Induction of the petitioner as tenant in the rented premises was acknowledged albeit under the deceased father of the respondent and therefore, even if this is presumed to be correct, the rented premises has devolved upon the respondent being legal heir, which status of the respondent is neither denied nor disputed by the petitioner. Moreover, the petitioner, as a measure of showing his bona fide, has neither approached the Rent Tribunal for deposit of rent to be paid to the lawful landlord/landowner nor has been any interpleader suit filed rather the petitioner has failed to deposit the rent even on the direction of this Court. This indicates the dereliction, with audacity, on part of the petitioner that cannot be countenanced. The demand of the rent by the respondent/landowner not neutralized by conflicting demand by any other legal heir including the mother of the respondent/wife of the deceased father of the respondent (who was the landlord as per contention of the petitioner) obligated the petitioner to make payment of rent to the respondent, keeping in view the settled principle of law that once a tenant is always a tenant. 1096Civil Revision 54865/23 China Harbour Engineering Company Limited Vs Z Z Enterprises Mr. Justice Raheel Kamran 03- 05- 2024 2023 LHC 7746 PLD 2024 Lahore 421, 2024 CLD 917 (Lahore)

Summary: Background:The Sunni Ittehad Council (SIC), a political entity with 82 general seats in Pakistan's National Assembly, filed appeals against the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) regarding the allocation of reserved seats for women and non-Muslims. The dispute arose after the ECP?s allocation of these reserved seats, which SIC contended violated constitutional provisions. The case, initially addressed by the Peshawar High Court and resulting in an unfavorable outcome for SIC, escalated to the Supreme Court of Pakistan.----Issues:The central issue revolves around the interpretation and application of Articles 51(6)(d) & (e) and 106(2)(c) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan concerning the allocation of reserved seats in the National Assembly:1.Whether the reserved seats should be distributed among political parties based on their proportional representation from general seats won in the elections.2.The eligibility of a political party for reserved seats allocation if it has not contested or won any seat in the general elections.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to address these constitutional questions, recognizing the case as one of first impression?meaning it involves legal issues that the Court has not previously decided. The Court noted the significance of ensuring that the allocation of reserved seats reflects the electorate's voice and upholds democratic principles, such as fairness and transparency in electoral processes.The appeals are scheduled for a hearing, with the Court permitting both parties to submit additional documents not included in the initial petitions. An interim order was issued, suspending the operation of both the judgment of the Peshawar High Court and the order by the ECP concerning the disputed reserved seats allocation, effective from the date of the Supreme Court's order.----Citations/Precedents:Article 51(6)(d) & (e) of the Constitution: Dictates the proportional representation system for the allocation of reserved seats based on the number of general seats a political party secures in the National Assembly.Article 106(2)(c) of the Constitution: Similar provisions as Article 51 but applicable to Provincial Assemblies.Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Act, 2023: Mentioned for procedural guidance on forming a larger bench to hear the case, indicating the legal and constitutional significance of the issues at hand.