IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH,

MULTAN.

W.P. No._____________/2002

1. Ziad Ahmad Mufti of Mufti

2. Syed Ahmad Naeem sons Muhammad
3. Mst. Kalsoom Mufti daughter Naeem
All residents of Darussalam, near Banat-ul-Islam High
School, Sahiwal.
Petitioners
VERSUS
1. The Government of Pakistan in the Ministry of Minority Affairs,
Islamabad.
2. The Chairman, Evacuee Trust Property Board, Govt. of Pakistan,
9-Court Street, Lahore.
3. The Deputy Administrator, Evacuee Trust Property, Sahiwal.
Respondents

Writ Petition under Article 199 of

the Constitution of Islamic
Republic of Pakistan, 1973.

Respectfully Sheweth: -
1. That the names and addresses of the parties for the purpose of
service are the same as given.

2. That the petitioners are tenants of Evacuee Trust Property Urban

Property. The said property was initially allotted to Mufti Zia-ul-
Hassan, the predecessor of the petitioners in 1950 and on his
death, was further allotted to his successors (the present
 petitioners) in the year 1983. Respondent No. 1 is the Federal
Govt. in whom the Evacuee Trust Property vests under section 6
of the Evacuee Trust Properties (Management and Disposal) Act,
1975. Respondent No. 3 is the District Officer dealing with the
affairs of the evacuee trust properties within Sahiwal.

3. That the petitioners with the permission of the Chairman Evacuee

Trust Board set up an Islamic institution “Jamia Zia-ul-Quran”
for the religious and Quranic education of the girls and women. A
double storey building consisting of two big halls and a number
of class rooms have been constructed for the purpose and more
than six hundred students attend the classes to learn Quran &
Hadis at different intervals in a day without payment of a single
penny. (Copies of Sanction Letter dated 15.1.91 and 1.7.98 are
Annexes “A & B”).

4. That the petitioners have been paying rent to respondent No. 3.

The rate of rent has been progressively increased by a percentage
generally by 30% after every three years.

5. That for the month of February 2002, the notices have been
issued by respondent No. 3, requiring the petitioners to pay rent.
The rate of rent has been so fixed that in many cases the increase
is 800 to 4800 percent. A comparison of the rent payable is given
in Schedule I to this petition. The Schedule may graciously be
read as part of this petition (copies of the Rent Bills are attached
as ANNEX “C”).

6. That the enhanced rate of rent has been issued by respondent No.
3 in purported exercise of the powers conferred and assumed
under Notification No. SRO(1)/2001, dated 5th September, 2001,
whereby the amendments have been effected in the Scheme for
the management and disposal of Urban Evacuee Trust Properties,
1977. Copy attached as ANNEX “D”. By this amendment
paragraph 11 has been introduced and analysis of paragraph 11
shows that evacuee trust urban property has been categorised in
various categories and formula of per square foot has been
 introduced. Needless to mention that the formula of periodic
increase in rent too has been retained. Resultantly, the petitioners
are obliged to pay out of proportion increase in rent periodically.

7. That the petitioners are aggrieved of the demand of payment of

enhanced rent and the introduction of paragraph 11 in the Scheme
for the management of Urban Evacuee Trust Property 1977 and
challenge the same being arbitrary, unreasonable and oppressive
and without lawful authority inter alia on the following: -

GROUNDS

i) That ordinarily the relations between the landlord and

tenant are governed by various statutes. In Punjab, the
matters are governed by Punjab Rent Restrictions
Ordinance, 1959, wherein by introduction of Section
5-A an automatic increase of 25% after every three
years has been introduced for non-residential properties.
For the residential properties a landlord seeking
increase in the rent has to get a fair rent fixed through
the Rent Controller. It may not be out of place to
mention that under section 3 of the Punjab Urban Rent
Restriction Ordinance, the evacuee trust properties are
exempted from the operation of the Punjab Urban Rent
Restriction Ordinance, 1959.
A comparison of the formula of increase in the
properties owned by individuals and the properties
which vest in the Federal Government will clearly
demonstrate that the ratio of increase in the evacuee
trust urban properties is too high rather arbitrary.

ii) That the arbitrariness of the formula of increase in

juxtaposition with the properties owned by private
landlords as compared to the properties of the Evacuee
Trust Property Board—the biggest landlords in the
country further demonstrate the arbitrariness in as much
 as the evacuee trust properties are not subject to local
taxes of property tax etc.

iii) That another important factor which demonstrates the

arbitrariness of the formula applied is the fact that the
evacuee trust urban properties are at least 55 years old
in as much as all the evacuee trust properties are of pre-
independence. The petitioners can say without fear of
contradiction that properties in their possession have
never been got repaired by the Evacuee Trust Property
Board and still the increase is manifold more than an
ordinary private landlord.

iv) That under Article 38 of the Constitution the State is to

“provide for all citizens within the available resources
of the country, facilities for work and adequate
livelihood with reasonable rest and pleasure.” It is
submitted that the enormous increase in the rate of rent
was reflected in the Schedule eliminates the existing
facilities for work for adequate livelihood. No doubt,
Article 38 is included in the principles of policy yet this
Hon’ble Court can enforce these principles indirectly by
placing an interpretation on the various legislative
instruments are to be given an interpretation which is in
consonance with Sharia. It is submitted that no rule of
Sharia permits the Government Agencies to be
oppressive and unreasonable.

v) That the amendment in the Scheme has been

incorporated in purported exercise of powers conferred
upon the Government under section 30 of the Evacuee
Trust Properties (Management & Disposal) Act, 1975.
It is submitted that no guidelines having been provided
it is a case of excessive delegated legislation.

vi) That assuming without conceding that section 30 of the

Evacuee Trust Properties (Management & Disposal)
 Act, is a valid piece of legislation. It is submitted that
no guidelines having been provided to frame a Schedule
under the said enactment, it was imperative to structure
the discretion. That exercise not having been done, the
exercise of discretion as such is open to serious legal
exceptions.

vii) That it is an established principle of law that a public

office is in the nature of Trust and the duties to be
performed by the person holding public office are
required to be performed for the benefit of the people
justly, fairly and honestly. These strings are all the more
necessary in the present case in as much as the
properties being managed by respondent No. 2 are in
their inception “Trust” properties.

viii) That section 30 of the Act permits respondent No. 1 to

make one or more schemes for the amendment and
maintenance of Evacuee Trust Properties. Section 30 of
the Act, however, does not provide the guideline in this
behalf. It is submitted that it is a case of excessive
delegated legislation. Respondent No. 1 cannot use the
unguided discretion so as to cause oppression to the
lessees. Respondents No. 1 & 2 have to follow the
provisions of enforcement of Sharia Act, and as such
follow the age-old recognised principles under Islamic
Fiqah that the Islamic State cannot exercise its powers
which may result in “Zulam” ( ).

ix) That the exploited demand of rent of the property being

used for religious/charitable purposes tantamounts to
exploitation by the respondent. It is submitted that
exploitation in any case is adhorable and particularly
when it is by a Govt. Department of an Islamic State.

x) That initially the Evacuee Board was established under

the Displaced Persons Compensation and Rehabilitation
 Act and Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act,
1958. Since the properties attached to Evacuee Trust
were to be retained as such no provision was enacted
for the transfer of such properties. “Non-Trust”
properties were ordered to be transferred. One of the
yardsticks for calculating the price of such properties
was 40 years aggregate rent formula. The petitioners are
by and large displaced persons. They have been paying
the rent to the Evacuee Trust Property Board since
1.4.1960. Thus calculated the petitioners have already
paid the price of the property.

xi) That the following comparison at a glance will further

demonstrate the high-handedness of the respondents: -

S. Privately owned Properties managed by

properties Evacuee Trust Board.
No.

All the taxes property The Evacuee Trust

tax etc. are paid by the Property Board does not
1 owners/landlords. pay the property tax etc.

The properties can be The properties are

and in most cases are invariably more than half
2 newly built properties. a century.

The minor repairs, There is hardly a case

white wash, paint etc. where the repairs have
3 are as a Rule been carried out by the
responsibility of the Evacuee Trust Property
landlord. Board.

Despite the above obvious advantages claimed and

enjoyed by the Evacuee Trust Property Board the ratio
of increase in rent is far above the ratio permissible
under the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance and
that too only the non-residential properties.

xii) That it is worth-mentioning that this Hon’ble court in

similar matter at the Principal Seat has called for
parawise comments from respondent No. 2 and also has
 directed the respondents to restrain from employing
coercive measures to enforce new scale of rents and
also directing petitioners to pay the rent at old rate.
(Copy of writ petition No. 3460/2002 and order dated
1.3.2002 are attached as Annexes “E & F”).

8. That the petitioners have no other adequate remedy except to

invoke the extra-ordinary constitutional jurisdiction of this
Hon’ble Court.

Keeping in view the above-mentioned facts, it is

respectfully prayed that this petition may graciously be
accepted and it may graciously be declared that
amended para No. 11 of the Scheme for the
administration of the Evacuee Trust Property 1977 is
ultra vires of the powers of the respondent No. 1.
It is further prayed that the demand of enhanced
rent may graciously be declared to be without lawful
authority and the respondents may graciously be
restrained from charging the enhanced rent from the
petitioners.
Any other relief to which the petitioners may be
found entitled may graciously be granted to the
petitioners.
HUMBLE PETITIONERS,

Dated: ___________

Through: -
Mirza Aziz Akbar Baig,
Advocate Supreme Court
of Pakistan.
District Courts, Multan.

Note: - As per instructions, no writ petition was

filed earlier on the above mentioned facts.
Advocate

IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH,

MULTAN.
 W.P. No. ______________/2002

Ziad Ahmad Mufti etc. Vs. Govt. of Pakistan etc.

AFFIDAVIT of: -
Ziad Ahmad Mufti son of Mufti Muhammad Naeem,
R/o Darussalam, near Banat-ul-Islam High School,
Sahiwal.

I, the above named deponent do hereby

solemnly affirm and declare that the contents of
the above-mentioned petition are true and correct
to the best of my knowledge and belief and
nothing has been kept concealed thereto.

DEPONENT

Verification: -
Verified on oath at Multan, this _____ day
of March 2002 that the contents of this affidavit
are true & correct to the best of my knowledge
and belief.

DEPONENT

IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH,

MULTAN.
 In re: C.M. No. _____________/2002
In
W.P. No. ______________/2002

Ziad Ahmad Mufti etc. Vs. Govt. of Pakistan etc.

APPLICATION FOR DISPENSING WITH THE

FILING OF CERTIFIED COPIES OF ANNEXURES.
=========================================

Respectfully Sheweth: -
That certified copies of Annexes “ ”
are not available. However, uncertified/photo state copies of
the same have been annexed with the petition, which are true
copies of original documents.

It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble

court may please dispense with the filing of aforesaid copies
of documents.
PETITIONERS

Dated: __________

Through: -
Mirza Aziz Akbar Baig,
Advocate Supreme Court
of Pakistan.
District Courts, Multan.

IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH,

MULTAN.
 In re: C.M. No. _____________/2002
In
W.P. No. ______________/2002

Ziad Ahmad Mufti etc. Vs. Govt. of Pakistan etc.

DISPENSATION APPLICATION.

AFFIDAVIT of: -
Ziad Ahmad Mufti son of Mufti Muhammad Naeem,
R/o Darussalam, near Banat-ul-Islam High School,
Sahiwal.

I, the above named deponent do hereby

solemnly affirm and declare that the contents of
the above-mentioned application are true and
correct to the best of my knowledge and belief
and nothing has been kept concealed thereto.

DEPONENT

Verification: -
Verified on oath at Multan, this _____ day
of March 2001 that the contents of this affidavit
are true & correct to the best of my knowledge
and belief.
DEPONENT

IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH,

MULTAN.
 W.P. No. ______________/2002

Ziad Ahmad Mufti etc. Vs. Govt. of Pakistan etc.

INDEX

S. No. NAME OF DOCUMENTS ANNEXES PAGES

1 Urgent Form
2 Stamp Paper.
3 Writ Petition.
4 Affidavit
5 Schedule I comparison of rent.
6 Copies of Rent Bill. A
7 Copy of Notification. B
8 Copy of writ petition No. 3460/2002 C&D
and order dated 1.3.2002 are attached.
9 Dispensation Application.
10 Affidavit.
11 Application U/s 151 C.P.C.
12 Affidavit.
13 Vakalatnama

PETITIONERS
Dated: ____________

Through: -
Mirza Aziz Akbar Baig,
Advocate Supreme Court
of Pakistan.
District Courts, Multan.

IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH,

MULTAN.
 In re: C.M. No._______________/2002
In
W.P. No. ______________/2002

Ziad Ahmad Mufti etc. Vs. Govt. of Pakistan etc.

Application under section 151 C.P.C.

for the grant of Stay Orders.

The applicants respectfully submit as under: -

1. That the above captioned writ petition has been filed before this
August Court.
2. That the contents of the revision petition should be considered as
part and parcel of this application.
3. That the petitioners have a good prima facie case.
4. That the respondents are bent upon to charge the enhanced rent
from the petitioners. In case they succeeded, the petitioner will
suffer irreparable loss.
5. That the balance of convenience lies with the applicants.
It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that during the
pendency of the writ petition the respondents may
kindly be restrained from charging the enhanced rent
from the petitioners. Affidavit is attached.

Humble Applicant
Dated: __________

Through: -
Mirza Aziz Akbar Baig,
Advocate Supreme Court
of Pakistan.
District Courts, Multan.
IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH,
MULTAN.
 In re: C.M. No._______________/2002
In
W.P. No. ______________/2002

Ziad Ahmad Mufti etc. Vs. Govt. of Pakistan etc.

STAY APPLICATION.

AFFIDAVIT of: -
Ziad Ahmad Mufti son of Mufti Muhammad Naeem,
R/o Darussalam, near Banat-ul-Islam High School,
Sahiwal.

I, the above named deponent do hereby

solemnly affirm and declare that the contents of
the above-titled application are true and correct
to the best of my knowledge and belief and
nothing has been kept concealed thereto.

DEPONENT

Verification: -
Verified on oath at Multan, this _____ day
of March 2002 that the contents of this affidavit
are true & correct to the best of my knowledge
and belief.

DEPONENT
 SCHEDULE SHOWING PRESENT INCREASE OF RENT.

S. No. Property Unit No. Sub Unit No. PREVIOUS PRESENT Percentage
rent paid for Nov, Dec rent assessed recoverable increased
2001 (tow months) for Jan, Feb 2002 (two
months)
1 0011 009 1714.00 82,720.00 4826%
 SCHEDULE SHOWING PRESENT INCREASE OF RENT.

S. No. Property Unit No. Sub Unit No. PREVIOUS PRESENT Percentage
rent paid for Nov, Dec rent assessed recoverable increased
2001 (two months) for Jan, Feb 2002 (two
months)
1 0011 12 1147.00 9922% 865%
 IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH, MULTAN.

W.P. No._____________/2002

1. Ziad Ahmad Mufti of Mufti

2. Syed Ahmad Naeem sons Muhammad
3. Mst. Kalsoom Mufti daughter Naeem
All residents of Darussalam, near Banat-ul-Islam High
School, Sahiwal.
Petitioners
VERSUS
1. The Government of Pakistan in the Ministry of Minority
Affairs, Islamabad.
2. The Chairman, Evacuee Trust Property Board, Govt. of
Pakistan, 9-Court Street, Lahore.
3. The Deputy Administrator, Evacuee Trust Property, Sahiwal.
Respondents

Writ Petition under Article 199 of

the Constitution of Islamic
Republic of Pakistan, 1973.

Respectfully Sheweth: -
1. That the names and addresses of the parties for the purpose of
service are the same as given.

2. That the petitioners are tenants of Evacuee Trust Property

Urban Property. Respondent No. 1 is the Federal Govt. in
whom the Evacuee Trust Property vests under section 6 of the
 Evacuee Trust Properties (Management and Disposal) Act,
1975. Respondent No. 3 is the District Officer dealing with
the affairs of the evacuee trust properties within Sahiwal.

3. That the petitioners have been paying rent to respondent No.

3. The rate of rent has been progressively increased by a
percentage generally by 30% after every three years.

4. That for the month of February 2002, the notices have been
issued by respondent No. 3, requiring the petitioners to pay
rent. The rate of rent has been so fixed that in many cases the
increase is 800 to 4800 percent. A comparison of the rent
payable is given in Schedule I to this petition. The Schedule
may graciously be read as part of this petition (copies of the
Rent Bills are attached as ANNEX “A”).

5. That the enhanced rate of rent has been issued by respondent

No. 3 in purported exercise of the powers conferred and
assumed under Notification No. SRO(1)/2001, dated 5th
September, 2001, whereby the amendments have been
effected in the Scheme for the management and disposal of
Urban Evacuee Trust Properties, 1977. Copy attached as
ANNEX “B”. By this amendment paragraph 11 has been
introduced and analysis of paragraph 11 shows that evacuee
trust urban property has been categorised in various categories
and formula of per square foot has been introduced. Needless
to mention that the formula of periodic increase in rent too has
been retained. Resultantly, the petitioners are obliged to pay
out of proportion increase in rent periodically.

6. That the petitioners are aggrieved of the demand of payment

of enhanced rent and the introduction of paragraph 11 in the
Scheme for the management of Urban Evacuee Trust Property
1977 and challenge the same being arbitrary, unreasonable
and oppressive and without lawful authority inter alia on the
following: -
 GROUNDS

i) That ordinarily the relations between the landlord and

tenant are governed by various statutes. In Punjab, the
matters are governed by Punjab Rent Restrictions
Ordinance, 1959, wherein by introduction of Section
5-A an automatic increase of 25% after every three
years has been introduced for non-residential
properties. For the residential properties a landlord
seeking increase in the rent has to get a fair rent fixed
through the Rent Controller. It may not be out of place
to mention that under section 3 of the Punjab Urban
Rent Restriction Ordinance, the evacuee trust properties
are exempted from the operation of the Punjab Urban
Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959.
A comparison of the formula of increase in the
properties owned by individuals and the properties
which vest in the Federal Government will clearly
demonstrate that the ratio of increase in the evacuee
trust urban properties is too high rather arbitrary.

ii) That the arbitrariness of the formula of increase in

juxtaposition with the properties owned by private
landlords as compared to the properties of the Evacuee
Trust Property Board—the biggest landlords in the
country further demonstrate the arbitrariness in as much
as the evacuee trust properties are not subject to local
taxes of property tax etc.

iii) That another important factor which demonstrates the

arbitrariness of the formula applied is the fact that the
evacuee trust urban properties are at least 55 years old
in as much as all the evacuee trust properties are of pre-
independence. The petitioners can say without fear of
contradiction that properties in their possession have
never been got repaired by the Evacuee Trust Property
 Board and still the increase is manifold more than an
ordinary private landlord.

iv) That under Article 38 of the Constitution the State is to

“provide for all citizens within the available resources
of the country, facilities for work and adequate
livelihood with reasonable rest and pleasure.” It is
submitted that the enormous increase in the rate of rent
was reflected in the Schedule eliminates the existing
facilities for work for adequate livelihood. No doubt,
Article 38 is included in the principles of policy yet this
Hon’ble Court can enforce these principles indirectly
by placing an interpretation on the various legislative
instruments are to be given an interpretation which is in
consonance with Sharia. It is submitted that no rule of
Sharia permits the Government Agencies to be
oppressive and unreasonable.

v) That the amendment in the Scheme has been

incorporated in purported exercise of powers conferred
upon the Government under section 30 of the Evacuee
Trust Properties (Management & Disposal) Act, 1975.
It is submitted that no guidelines having been provided
it is a case of excessive delegated legislation.

vi) That assuming without conceding that section 30 of the

Evacuee Trust Properties (Management & Disposal)
Act, is a valid piece of legislation. It is submitted that
no guidelines having been provided to frame a Schedule
under the said enactment, it was imperative to structure
the discretion. That exercise not having been done, the
exercise of discretion as such is open to serious legal
exceptions.

vii) That it is an established principle of law that a public

office is in the nature of Trust and the duties to be
performed by the person holding public office are
 required to be performed for the benefit of the people
justly, fairly and honestly. These strings are all the more
necessary in the present case in as much as the
properties being managed by respondent No. 2 are in
their inception “Trust” properties.

viii) That section 30 of the Act permits respondent No. 1 to

make one or more schemes for the amendment and
maintenance of Evacuee Trust Properties. Section 30 of
the Act, however, does not provide the guideline in this
behalf. It is submitted that it is a case of excessive
delegated legislation. Respondent No. 1 cannot use the
unguided discretion so as to cause oppression to the
lessees. Respondents No. 1 & 2 have to follow the
provisions of enforcement of Sharia Act, and as such
follow the age-old recognised principles under Islamic
Fiqah that the Islamic State cannot exercise its powers
which may result in “Zulm” .

ix) That the exploited demand of rent tantamounts t

exploitation by the respondent. It is submitted that
exploitation in any case is adhorable and particularly
when it is by a Govt. Department of an Islamic State.

x) That initially the Evacuee Board was established under

the Displaced Persons Compensation and Rehabilitation
Act and Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act,
1958. Since the properties attached to Evacuee Trust
were to be retained as such no provision was enacted
for the transfer of such properties. “Non-Trust”
properties were ordered to be transferred. One of the
yardsticks for calculating the price of such properties
was 40 years aggregate rent formula. The petitioners
are by and large displaced persons. They have been
paying the rent to the Evacuee Trust Property Board
since 1.4.1960. Thus calculated the petitioners have
already paid the price of the property.
 xi) That the following comparison at a glance will further
demonstrate the high-handedness of the respondents: -

S. Privately owned Properties managed by

properties Evacuee Trust Board.
No.

All the taxes property The Evacuee Trust

tax etc. are paid by the Property Board does not
1 owners/landlords. pay the property tax etc.

The properties can be The properties are

and in most cases are invariably more than half
2 newly built properties. a century.

The minor repairs, There is hardly a case

white wash, paint etc. where the repairs have
3 are as a Rule been carried out by the
responsibility of the Evacuee Trust Property
landlord. Board.

Despite the above obvious advantages claimed and

enjoyed by the Evacuee Trust Property Board the ratio
of increase in rent is far above the ratio permissible
under the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance and
that too only the non-residential properties.

xii) That it is worth-mentioning that this Hon’ble court in

similar matter at the Principal Seat has called for
parawise comments from respondent No. 2 and also has
directed the respondents to restrain from employing
coercive measures to enforce new scale of rents and
also directing petitioners to pay the rent at old rate.
(Copy of writ petition No. 3460/2002 and order dated
1.3.2002 are attached as Annexes “E & F”).

7. That the petitioners have no other adequate remedy except to

invoke the extra-ordinary constitutional jurisdiction of this
Hon’ble Court.

Keeping in view the above-mentioned

facts, it is respectfully prayed that this petition
may graciously be accepted and it may
 graciously be declared that amended para No. 11
of the Scheme for the administration of the
Evacuee Trust Property 1977 is ultra vires of the
powers of the respondent No. 1.
It is further prayed that the demand of
enhanced rent may graciously be declared to be
without lawful authority and the respondents may
graciously be restrained from charging the
enhanced rent from the petitioners.
Any other relief to which the petitioners
may be found entitled may graciously be granted
to the petitioners.

HUMBLE PETITIONERS,

Dated: ___________

Through: -
Mirza Aziz Akbar Baig,
Advocate Supreme Court
of Pakistan.
District Courts, Multan.

Note: - As per instructions, no writ petition

was filed earlier on the above
mentioned facts.
Advocate