Lease of land

2023 YLR 1616 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

S. 11Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), Ss. 12, 42 & 54Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XXXIX, Rr.1 & 2Suit for specific performance of agreement, declaration and injunctionInterim injunction, refusal ofLease of landProcedurePrivate treatyScope

Plaintiff company was aggrieved of refusal of defendant Authority with regard to renewal of lease of land for petrol pump

Validity

Under the erstwhile Land Lease Policy of Civil Aviation Authority, lease expiring after 30 years was not to be renewed by mutual consent but the premises was to be leased after open bidding albeit with a preference to previous lessee if it matched the highest bid

Said policy envisaged that lease by private treaty was restricted to airlines, aviation related training institutes and services, flying clubs, and government/semi-government agencies for official purposes

Plaintiff was not amongst such entities so as to be leased demised premises without a process of open bidding

Letter issued by Civil Aviation Authority valued demised premises at Rs. 65,000/- per square yard

Despite methodology provided in the Policy for fixing value of land proposed to be leased, there was nothing to show how the value of demised premises had been fixed

Purported renewal of lease was not in accord with the Land Lease Policy

Since plaintiff itself sought renewal under Land Lease Policy, it could not attribute want of knowledge of violation to the doctrine of indoor management

Where Board of Civil Aviation Authority did not approve renewal of lease and it was in the knowledge of plaintiff that a further lease of demised premises could only be granted in line with Land Lease Policy, the letter issued by Civil Aviation Authority did not constitute a contract for renewing lease of the demised premises

Plaintiff failed to demonstrate that there was a contract between the parties for renewing lease of demised premises

Plaintiff did not have a prima facie case for grant of temporary injunction

Application was dismissed, in circumstances.

2017 YLR 2197 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Ss. 42 & 39Suit for declarationLease of landCancellation ofContention of authorities was that lease in favour of plaintiff was forged and bogusValidity

Law authorized a person to seek enforcement of his right to any property by instituting a suit against a person denying his right or title

Suit property was leased in favour of plaintiff

Nothing was on record that plaintiff committed any fraud with regard to transfer of suit property

Plaintiff raised constructions on the suit property after occupying the same

Lease deed in favour of plaintiff was registered document which had presumption of truth

Strong and cogent evidence was required to rebut the said lease deed

Authorities had failed to rebut lease deed in favour of plaintiff

Registered instrument could only be cancelled in terms of S.39 of Specific Relief Act, 1877

Lease deed had not been got cancelled by the Authorities

No one could be deprived of his property except by following due process of law

Transfer of suit property in favour of defendants was illegal and encroachment on the right of plaintiff

Suit was decreed in circumstances.

2017 YLR 2006 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

O. XXXIX, Rr.1 & 2 & O. VII, R.11Easements Act (V of 1882), Ss. 52, 62, 63 & 64Application for restraining defendants from interference with the plaintiff's possession of suit propertyLease of landCancellation ofLicense for installation of filling station and CNGGrant of temporary injunctionInstallation of filling station without agreement with the owner of suit landEffect

License issued in favour of plaintiff could not authorize/entitle him to acquire any right, title and interest against the owner of land

Plaintiff under license of CNG filling station had earned the status of 'operator' only over the subject matter while surrendering exclusion of his rights in favour of company

Plaintiff could not claim a right against the owner of suit land

Ejectment proceedings had ended in favour of owner of land where filling station had been installed

Plaintiff could not seek an exception to such earned right of defendant merely by referring to his status of 'dealer or operator'

No suit could sustain against a person unless it was established that plaintiff had independent legal character against such person

No one could keep an earned right with reference to act or omission of some other person else a lis

Plaintiff had no agreement with the owner of leased land

Plaintiff had to sail or sink with the licensee

Plaintiff had no independent legal character to maintain the suit

Grant of license was independent upon competence of the grantor in respect of immovable property

Competence of grantor only could create a right

Plaintiff and grantor were aware of legal status and competence of dealer

Order of ejectment of defendant could bring an end to such right (license)

Company on its ejectment from suit property had no right and authority to appoint its 'dealer or operator' for selling its product at the suit property

Suit of plaintiff was not maintainable in circumstances

Plaintiff could not defeat or delay a lawful order of a competent Court i.e. ejectment order through independent suit

Trial in the present suit would be a futile exercise

Plaint was rejected in circumstances.

2017 YLR 262 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

S. 64Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199Constitutional petitionMaintainabilityLease of landViolation of terms of leaseCancellation of leaseScope

Plot was leased out in favour of petitioner for commercial development including construction of five star hotel but the same was not constructed in terms of lease and lease was cancelled

Contention of petitioner was that five star hotel could not be constructed due to law and order situation in the city

Validity

Present use of subject land was in violation of terms of lease granted to the petitioner

Consideration/justification for granting lease of plot on such a low price was to attract foreign investment by construction of a five star hotel

One of the most valuable property of the Province was being misused perhaps with the connivance of some of the officials of Revenue Department

Permission to misuse the subject land in violation of terms of lease was allowed by the authorities

If licensee without any fault on his part was evicted by the grantor before he had fully enjoyed the licence, he would be entitled to recover compensation from the grantor

Petitioner would only suffer damages on account of withdrawal of permission which even otherwise was against the terms and conditions of the lease

Constitutional petition was not maintainable which was dismissed, in circumstances

Copy of order of High Court was sent to the Chairman NAB to look into the matter to ensure that there was no corruption or corrupt practice involved while allowing the petitioner to violate the terms of lease.

2017 MLD 1094 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Arts. 199, 23 & 24Constitutional petitionLease of landCancellation ofScopePlot in question was purchased by auction purchaser in open bidSaid land was subsequently transferred in favour of petitionerPetitioner had made entire payment of suit plotVested right had been created in favour of petitioner with regard to said plotRight once created could not be snatched in the manner as it was done by the authoritiesRegistration of lease deed after collecting all the dues was responsibility of authorities

If there was any sluggishness on the part of petitioner even then he could not be punished for the same by snatching a right which was guaranteed under the Constitution

No one could be deprived of his property save in accordance with law

Action taken against the petitioner was not in accordance with law

Neither any show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner nor he was heard before taking impugned action against him

Notice should have been issued as to why allotment of petitioner be not cancelled

Act of authorities was violation of principles of natural justice

Impugned cancellation of plot of petitioner was liable to be struck down

Plot in question was still available and same had not been auctioned

Respondent was directed to execute and register lease deed in favour of petitioner and hand over the physical possession of the plot to him

Petitioner would pay the outstanding charges if any which were permissible in law

Constitutional petition was allowed in circumstances.

2016 YLR 2706 SUPREME-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIR Judicial Precedent

S. 18Azad Jammu and Kashmir Grant of Khalsa Land (Ground Rent and Lease) Rules, 1985, R. 7Azad Jammu and Kashmir Supreme Court Rules, 1978, O. XLIII, Rr. 5 & 6Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act (VIII of 1974), S. 42-ALease of landCancellationLand acquisitionReference to courtOrder without summoning of necessary partyEffectInherent powers of Supreme Court, exercise ofScopeLease of suit land was sanctioned in favour of applicant-lease-holder which was later on acquired for public purpose

Applicant-lease-holder moved application for referring the matter to the Referee Judge whereby he requested for payment and enhancement of compensation which was partly accepted

Validity

Lease holder was not owner of suit land and he had no right to claim compensation

Findings recorded by Referee Judge were against the statutory provisions

No notice was served upon the government who was owner of land in question

Judgment was passed against the government without affording an opportunity of hearing

Referee Judge had conducted proceedings against law

Referee Judge was bound to serve a notice upon government who was party in the line of respondents

Decree in favour of lease holder was nullity in the eye of law

Supreme Court could exercise inherent powers for doing complete justice without appeal by the government in the present circumstances

Lease holder had filed an undertaking that he would surrender the suit land in favour of government if it was required for a "public purpose"

Applicant-lease holder was not an aggrieved person to maintain a reference application

Reference application was not competent and decision/decree passed by the Referee Judge was nullity in the eye of law

Appeal was disposed of in circumstances.

2015 YLR 2719 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

S. 42Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882), S. 52Suit for declarationLease of landConversion of plot from residential to commercial

Plot in question was for residential purpose only and was not to be diverted to other use without previous consent in writing of the lessor and Housing Society

Private person could not produce a copy of such document which was not in his custody

No letter was written by the lessee to the Housing Society for conversion of plot from residential to commercial

Lessee did not acquire leasehold rights of a commercial plot

Letter for conversion of plot from residential to commercial produced by the defendants was forged and manipulated

Both the courts below had failed to read evidence correctly and findings given by them were totally against the evidence on record

Plot in question was not converted from residential to commercial

If an area/road was declared commercial by operation of law, there was no need to obtain any fresh/separate permission for change or use of land/plot in such area or on such road

If suit property was alienated by defendants during pendency of suit, such alienation/transfer would not be hit by provisions of S. 52 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882, however, judgment passed in the present case would be binding on any subsequent buyer

Impugned judgments passed by both the courts below suffered from misreading, non-reading and mis-conception of the evidence available on record which were set aside and case was remanded to the Trial Court for decision afresh on the basis of material on record

Appeal was accepted in circumstances.

2015 MLD 1156 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Art. 199General Clauses Act (X of 1897), S. 24-ASpecific Relief Act (I of 1877), S. 39Constitutional petitionLease of landCancellationRequirements

Contention of petitioner was that lease was granted in his favour for 30 years but same had been cancelled and land had been resumed by the Government

Validity

Lease for 30 years was granted in favour of petitioner by the Government and he took possession of land in question after making payment of requisite charges by complying all the codal formalities

Neither any show-cause notice was issued or served upon the petitioner nor any opportunity of hearing was provided by the respondent-Government to enable the petitioner to explain his position with regard to the allegations of having violated the terms and conditions of lease

Neither the alleged report was prepared in presence of petitioner nor he had been confronted with such adverse report

Impugned order was false and baseless which was not sustainable in the eyes of law

Leasehold rights of a lessee who had not violated the terms of lease or grant could not be cancelled unless requirements of S. 39 of Specific Relief Act, 1877 were fulfilled or declaration for cancellation of such document of lease was sought from competent court of jurisdiction

Impugned order was illegal which had been issued in violation of principles of natural justice as no opportunity of hearing had been provided to the petitioner before passing the said order

Said order did not contain any valid reason and same was violative of provisions of S.24-A of General Clauses Act, 1897 and was not sustainable which was set aside

Petitioner would be entitled to enjoy the benefit of lease till its expiry, however Revenue Authorities were directed to refund the amount which was paid by the private respondents within a reasonable period or compensate by alternate allotment of land on lease

Constitutional petition was disposed of accordingly.

2014 CLC 185 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

Art. 199Constitutional petitionScopeLease of landDefault in payment of lease moneyOrder for ejectment of tenantsValidityTenancy existed between the partiesDefendants neither produced any receipt nor any person to prove payment of lease money or produceSuit-land had been sold in favour of plaintiffsPlaintiffs were landlords whereas defendants were tenants who were defaulters and were liable to be ejected

Objection with regard to non-framing of issues had been raised for the first time before the High Court in constitutional jurisdiction and was never raised before the appellate, revisional or review forum

Such objection was meaningless as both the parties had adduced their evidence as they wished

Constitutional jurisdiction conferred on the High Court was of extraordinary nature which was not for interference with the matter pertaining to the exclusive domain of tribunal or statutory forum unless it was shown that order, action or inaction was in violation of any provision of law or without lawful authority or jurisdiction

Defendants had failed to make out a case for the indulgence of the High Court in its extraordinary jurisdiction

No jurisdictional error, illegality or irregularity was found in the impugned judgments/orders

Constitutional petition was dismissed.

2013 CLC 786 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Para. 322(c)Punjab Delegation Rules, 2006Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199Constitutional petitionLease of landVillage servants (Moeens)

Petitioners were in possession of land in question as village servants (Moeens) but authorities wanted to get the land vacated on the plea of establishing graveyard for newly established housing colonies

Validity

Petitioners' forefathers were allotted disputed land, they had served cause of the State and helped the State for establishing new villages (BARS) and remained active part for bringing barren land into cultivation

Equity demanded that Moeens should be compensated in case the State intended to change character of land from agriculture to urban

Constitution has provided that every citizen is equal before law and enjoys equal rights

Islam the State religion provides that in law, Moeens and landowner/Ziminadar enjoy equal rights

If land to temporary cultivators could be transferred permanently after some time why not Moeens

Resumption of land from Moeens in their possession was violative of the Constitution and the same could not be allowed

High Court declared the orders passed by authorities as without lawful authority and the same were set aside

Petition was allowed in circumstances.

2012 CLC 1846 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Ss. 8, 42 & 54Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.VI, R.4Lease of landSuit for possession, declaration and injunctionFraud, plea ofDetails of fraud, non-mentioning of

Plaintiff claimed to be owner of suit-land and alleged that he did not sell the land to defendant who committed fraud and cheating with him

Suit was decreed by Trial Court in favour of plaintiff

Validity

No detail of fraud and no date as to when he gained knowledge of fraud was on record

Plaintiff failed to explain why defendant had been depositing rent with authorities since year, 2001

Plea of plaintiff that lease was non-transferable was contrary to lease agreement, which allowed a transfer of lease hold rights subject to permission by the authorities

Basis of case of plaintiff was not in accordance with lease agreement

Plaintiff failed to prove his case of fraud and if no case of fraud was established then case of plaintiff on forgery also failed

Even though plaintiff denied signature on documents in question, he did not justify deposit of transfer fee, receipt of partial payment, refund of security deposit or the fact that defendant had deposited rent for five years

Plaintiff failed to make out case of fraud and as such was not entitled to possession

High Court in exercise of appellate jurisdiction, set aside judgment and decree passed by Trial Court and suit filed by plaintiff was dismissed

Appeal was allowed in circumstances.