MUHAMMAD HANIF vs MUHAMMAD FAROOQ And Other
This matter arises from a petition before the Supreme Court of Pakistan concerning the transfer of disputed premises and the status of tenancy. The core legal question involves whether the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents was a tenant of the petitioner and whether the plea of tenancy was properly raised and considered. The Court held that the petitioner's consistent case was that the property stood transferred in his favour and was given to the respondents' predecessor-in-interest after vesting in the petitioner, meaning the plea of tenancy was not newly raised before the High Court. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal, ordered security of Rs. 5,000, and directed that status quo be maintained regarding the property, prohibiting alienation or change of character during the pendency of the appeal. The key principle laid down is that established factual positions regarding tenancy and property transfer raised consistently throughout the proceedings must be duly considered.
- Whether a plea of tenancy raised consistently throughout the proceedings can be deemed to have been raised for the first time before the High Court?
- Can status quo be ordered during the pendency of an appeal concerning disputed property transfer?
ORDER
1. NASIM HASAN. SHAH, J: --It has, inter alia, been held by the High Court that respondent No. 1 was occupying the disputed premises as tenant, under the petitioner, since 1966 and, therefore, could not claim the transfer thereof. Plea of tenancy has not been raised in the instant petition. Also, learned counsel could not point out anything to substantiate it. I am, therefore, unable to accept the above plea.
2. The learned counsel submits that it was an admitted position that the predecessor-in-interest of respondents Nos. 1 to 5 herein namely Abdul Aziz was a tenant of the petitioner. Hence the question of substantiating this plea did not arise. Similarly, the observation of the High Court that the plea of tenancy was raised before the High Court for the first time was misconceived. The case of the petitioner has throughout been that the property in question stood transferred in his favour and that the same was given to the predecessor-in-interest of respondents Nos. 1 to 5 after the same had vested in him. The plea taken before the High Court was not, therefore, a new plea.
3. Security Rs.5,000.
4. Status quo will be maintained by the respondents who will neither alienate the property in dispute nor change its character, during the pendency of this appeal. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.