Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Background: The petitioner challenged the decision of the appellate court affirming the rent controller’s eviction order. The respondent had filed an eviction petition based on the expiration of the lease agreement and a bona fide personal need for the property to establish a wedding hall. The petitioner argued the lease had been extended orally until 2020 and that a wedding hall at the rented premises was legally impermissible. Both lower courts found in favor of the respondent. -----Issues: 1- Was the eviction petition maintainable based on the expiration of the lease agreement? ----2- Did the respondent establish a bona fide personal need for the rented premises? ----3- Was the petitioner entitled to contest the eviction on procedural and evidentiary grounds? -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: --Lease Agreement: The court held that the lease agreement, which explicitly expired on 31.12.2010, was not legally extended. The petitioner failed to substantiate claims of an oral extension, and no written agreement was executed as required under the Islamabad Rent Restriction Ordinance, 2001 (IRRO). --Bona Fide Need: The court found the respondent's claim of bona fide need valid and upheld the concurrent findings of the lower courts. It reasoned that the respondent demonstrated genuine intent to use the property for personal purposes. --Procedural and Evidentiary Grounds: The petitioner’s objections regarding the execution of the lease agreement were dismissed as they were contradicted by earlier admissions. The respondent was not required to prove the original lease agreement beyond what was already acknowledged by the petitioner. --Regulatory Challenges: The petitioner’s argument about the permissibility of a wedding hall under zoning regulations was deemed irrelevant to the eviction proceedings, as such matters fall under the jurisdiction of the CDA. The writ petition was dismissed. The court upheld the eviction order and allowed the respondent to proceed with possession. -----Citations/Precedents: --Lease Agreement and Eviction: Abdul Hameed Talib v. Additional District Judge Lahore (PLD 2013 SC 775) Zarina Khawaja v. Agha Mahboob Shah (PLD 1988 SC 190) Munawar Sultana v. Additional District Judge Islamabad (2005 CLC 1119) Zulfiqar Ahmad v. Nisar Baig, Additional District Judge Islamabad (2010 YLR 1521) --Bona Fide Need: Ch. Akbar Hussain v. Mrs. Zehra Bai (2002 SCMR 789) Rehan Ahmed v. Mrs. Nadra Israr (PLD 2012 Sindh 203) F.B. Davis v. Mrs. Shakar Khano Bai (1986 MLD 1342) --Evidence and Lease: Fakhar-ud-Din v. Mst. Mansab Bibi (2004 SCMR 711) Mst. Hameeda Begum v. Mst. Irshad Begum (2007 SCMR 996) Hyderabad Development Authority v. Abdul Majeed (PLD 2002 SC 84) Abdul Rehman v. Zia-ul-Haque Makhdoom (2012 SCMR 954) --Binding Nature of Expired Lease Agreements: Qaiser Javed Malik v. Pervaiz Hameed (2009 SCMR 846) Farrukh Zia v. Mst. Bushra Begum (2013 CLC 1077) Ghulam Abbas v. Additional Sessions Judge (West) Islamabad (2015 MLD 1740)

Summary: Pending

Summary: Appointment and withdrawal of appointment order, Law of locus poenitentiae.

Summary: Need base appointments no right for confirmation/regularization.

Summary: Grounds for review of Judgment.

Summary: Civil service-------Advertisement for appointment---Change of nomenclature---Scope---Petitioner wasappointed as Physiotherapist but nomenclature of the same was changed as Nursing Sisterand was appointed as such---Application of petition for appointment as Physiotherapist waskept pending---Validity---Appointing department was competent forum to make regulationsand decide affairs for the smooth running of the Institution---Creation of post was made afteradopting all legal process for the recruitment of the said post through Selection Board of thedepartment which was approved by the Government---Appointment against the post inquestion was made on merits, in a transparent manner on the recommendation of SelectionBoard---Petitioner had no vested right to be appointed on the seat against which she did notfulfill the basic qualification---Department could not be restrained from appointing otherperson on merit and as per the requirements---Said other person had higher qualification inthe relevant field, who was given preference as per advertisement whereas petitioner who wasclaiming better qualification than the other person was found to be lacking of any additionalrequisite qualification---Petitioner, therefore, could not be appointed by the Selection Board---Petitioner who on one hand had applied for the vacant post on the basis of advertisement buton the other hand had challenged the validity of said advertisement could not be allowed toblow hot and cold at the same time---Application of petitioner for change of designation asPhysiotherapist was duly considered and dismissed by the competent authority---Petitioner'sapplication for the post of Physiotherapist was still pending before the department---Constitutional petition being pre-mature, was dismissed.

Summary: The case revolves around a suit filed by the appellant bank under Section 9 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, seeking to recover an amount of Rs. 7,521,320.22 from the respondents. The respondents contested the suit by filing an application for leave to defend, while some of them did not appear in court.The judgment sheet discusses how the Banking Court, Bahawalpur, invoked Order VII Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code (C.P.C.) to return the plaint, arguing that the bank had not complied with specific requirements under the FIO, 2001. This action led to the appellant's appeal.The judgment sheet explains that the Banking Court's decision was incorrect because it failed to follow the proper procedure set out in the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001. Specifically, the Banking Court should have first decided the application for leave to defend before returning the plaint. The judgment sheet highlights that the FIO, 2001 is a special law governing banking suits, and its provisions must be strictly followed.The judgment sheet also clarifies that the requirement for producing "sanction advice" is not necessary to establish cause of action, and the absence of this document doesn't make the suit non-maintainable. In conclusion, the judgment sheet allows the appeal, sets aside the impugned order, and remands the case back to the Banking Court to be decided afresh in accordance with the law, emphasizing the importance of following the correct legal procedure under the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001.

Summary: The FIR was based on allegations that on 12.11.2016, during an inspection at the petitioner's petrol pump, certain security arrangements were found lacking. These deficiencies included non-functional CCTV cameras, the absence of a security guard, and inadequate measures for the safekeeping of sale proceeds.The petitioner's counsel argued that the Station House Officer, who filed the FIR, was not authorized under the Punjab Security Vulnerable Establishment Ordinance, 2015, to register a criminal case against the petitioner. According to the law, the Station House Officer's role was limited to inspecting vulnerable establishments and submitting reports to the relevant authorities. The petitioner's counsel claimed that the FIR was thus registered without jurisdiction and was illegal.In response, the Deputy Prosecutor General representing the State did not contest the legal arguments made by the petitioner's counsel and informed the court that the challan (charge sheet) for the case had been submitted to the trial court.After hearing the arguments and considering the legal provisions of the Punjab Security Vulnerable Establishment Ordinance, 2015, the court found that the Station House Officer had acted beyond his authority in registering the FIR against the petitioner. The court noted that the procedure prescribed by the ordinance had not been followed, and the registration of the FIR was illegal and void ab-initio (from the beginning).As a result, the court allowed the writ petition, quashed the impugned FIR, and ruled in favor of the petitioner, Mumtaz Hussain.

Summary: The main issue addressed in this order sheet is the petitioner's challenge to an order dated October 25, 2016, which allowed the submission of affidavits in evidence by the respondents. The background of the case involves the respondents filing an ejectment petition under Section 15 of The Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009, seeking the eviction of the petitioner. The petitioner initially contested this petition by filing an application for leave to defend, which was granted. Subsequently, the respondents applied to submit their affidavits as evidence, which was contested by the petitioner.The petitioner's argument was based on Section 19 of The Act, 2009, which, in subsection 4, required the landlords (the respondents) to submit their affidavits along with the eviction application. The petitioner claimed that the non-submission of these affidavits precluded the respondents from making such an application at a later stage.After a thorough review of the case and arguments presented by both parties, the judge determined that while the law suggested the submission of affidavits along with the eviction application, it was not an inflexible rule. The judge cited legal precedent indicating that the use of the word "shall" in a legal provision does not necessarily make it mandatory; the nature of a provision depends on the consequences of non-compliance as provided in the statute.Since the statute in question did not specify consequences for non-compliance, the judge considered the provision to be directory rather than mandatory. Additionally, the judge noted that the application was made immediately after framing the issues and did not cause any prejudice to the petitioner.Consequently, the judge concluded that the Rent Tribunal's decision to allow the submission of affidavits by the respondents was correct, and there were no legal irregularities warranting the Lahore High Court's intervention. As a result, the petitioner's writ petition was dismissed.