Hasnain Ahmad

IN THE COURT OF LEARNED SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MULTAN.

Civil Suit No. __________/2002

1.

Mr. Hasnain Ahmad Khan S/o Manzoor Ahmad Khan, caste Chingwani Baloch, R/o Paigah, Dera Ghazi Khan.

2.

Mr. Muhammad Khalid Zaffar S/o Sheikh Muhammad Amin, caste Sheikh, R/o H. No. 246/B-1, Basti Sialaan, Multan. Plaintiffs VERSUS

Haji Muhammad Rafique S/o Malik Amir Bakhsh, caste Jat Bhutta, R/o H. No. 207/EX, Chah Choorigran Wala, Vehari Road, Chowk Shah Abbas, Multan. Defendant

Suit for Declaration to the effect that the plaintiffs are the lawful lessees of defendant under the Lease Agreement dated 26.1.1999 in the property detailed below and the defendant is not entitled to lease out this property

during

aforementioned

the

subsistence

of

lease

agreement

to

anybody else; And also; A suit for permanent injunction as a consequential defendant

relief

restraining

from illegally

dispossessing

plaintiffs

and from

the

forcibly disputed

property for all times to come and also from making any hindrances in the peaceful user of disputed property by plaintiffs during the subsistence of lease period i.e. till 30.4.2008. DETAILS OF PROPERTY: Lyalla Irshad Flour Mills located in Khata No. 116 in black ink & 107 in red ink, Khatooni No. 143, Qita No. 27, Khasra No. 1686

of

Mauza

Taraf

Daira,

Chah

Choorigran Wala, Vehari Road, Chowk Shah Abbas, Multan (within Municipal Corporation

limits)

bounded

and

surrounded as under: East:

Road thoroughfare

West:

Property belonging to Waseem-ul-Haq

North:

Property belonging to Irshad Ilahi

South:

Property belonging to Muhammad Ramzan.

(Which shall be called the disputed property in the plaint for the sake of brevity).

Respectfully Sheweth: 1.

That originally the disputed property was a plot admeasuring 1K—10M, which was purchased by defendant from Wasamul-Haq son of Waseem-ul-Haq vide Sale Deed document No. 3875, Volume No. 383 attested by Sub-Registrar (Urban), Multan on 19.5.1985. Photo-copy is attached.

2.

That the defendant, being its owner, intended to construct over it a Flour Mills and in furtherance thereof, he did start the construction, but paucity of funds incapacitated him to complete this project as per desire. So, in order to complete this project; he sought monetary help from the interested parties and ultimately, bargain was struck with the plaintiffs.

3.

That after a long discussion, it was agreed by the parties that the disputed property may be leased out to the plaintiffs, who after incurring substantial amount would make the Flour Mills in working condition.

4.

That the defendant duly executed a lease agreement in favour of the plaintiffs regarding disputed property on 26.1.1999. Salient features of the agreement which are helpful and necessary for the rightful decision of instant suit are being reproduced as follows: a)

Lease period is fixed for 9 years starting from 1.5.99 and expiring on 30.4.2008, during this period the lessor shall not be entitled to eject the lessee.

b)

Monthly lease money (rent) of the demised premises is fixed as Rs. 36,000/- (thirty six thousand rupees only) out of which Rs. 18,000/- shall be paid to the lessor by the lessee on or before 5th of every calendar month in advance and the remaining Rs. 18,000/- shall be adjusted against the amount incurred by the plaintiffs on the development/completion of Flour Mills.

c)

Lessees shall be responsible for procuring electricity connection and telephone connections from the relevant departments and all the expenses and charges incurred on it shall be adjusted in monthly lease money.

d)

That his Flour Mills is incomplete in construction-wise as well as in Machinery-wise and in order to make the Flour Mills in working conditions, huge amount of Rs. 18 to 20 lacs are required, so the lessees i.e. plaintiffs shall bear all these expenses from their own resources, which shall be adjusted in monthly lease money as stated above.

e)

That an amount of Rs. 50,000/- has been paid by the lessees to the lessor as a security against a written receipt of even date, which shall be adjusted against monthly lease money (rent) as above.

f)

That the lessor shall not eject the lessee in any manner whatsoever during this period of lease, which will expire on 30.4.2008.

g)

That the lessor shall not be entitled to eject the lessees until and unless the amount incurred on the development of Flour Mills by lessees is adjusted finally in the monthly lease money (rent) as stated above.

h)

The lessees shall make arrangements for procuring sanction of wheat quota for grinding purposes in the Flour Mills from the Govt. Food Department from their own sources.

i)

That the possession of Flour Mills as it is, has been handed over by the lessor to the lessees on the spot and lessees have taken over the possession of an incomplete building thereof etc.

5.

That the lessees after taking over the possession of disputed property incurred handsome amount of Rs. 28,00,000/- on it in different quarters, details of which have been incorporated in a separate register maintained by lessees, which amount has been endorsed and accepted by lessor under his signatures on the said record.

6.

That the lessees for the first time made the disputed property in working condition by adding the following requirements in the disputed property: i)

Electricity connection form WAPDA.

ii)

Restoration of telephone connection by paying the arrears of Rs. 18,238/-.

iii)

Installation of machinery i.e. Bodies, Shifters, Suji Machine, Rulers etc.

iv)

New construction of building i.e. Sheds, Labour rooms, Accountant Washroom

office, and

Mosque,

renovation

Chowkidar’s of

building

constructed and in dilapidated condition.

room, already

v)

Quota of wheat was got sanctioned through writ petition from food department.

All these improvements in the disputed property were made by plaintiffs with the consent of defendant which is in the knowledge of the lessor. 7.

That because of this investment, the value of the disputed property has enormously been increased and the Flour Mills has been converted into working condition for the first time by the lessees. This enhancement in value of disputed property has caused lust and greed in the mind of lessor, who has turned dishonest and wants to dispossess the lessees through foul and illegal means and in furtherance thereof a week ago he has tried to do the same, but due to the timely intervention of lessees’ staff and security guard, he could not succeed.

8.

That the lessees are paying the monthly lease money regularly to the lessor and are also abiding by all the conditions as agreed in between the parties, but unfortunately, the lessor has turned dishonest and is illegally creating hindrances in the peaceful user and occupation of lessees over the disputed property.

9.

That an amount of about rupees 20 to 22 lacs of lessees have been in circulation as credit with the different “Tajirs”.

10.

That as per agreement, the lessor is not entitled to eject the lessees until the expiry of lease period which is to expire on 30.4.2008, about which the defendant has been apprised of by plaintiffs, but in order to feed his lust, he is out to dispossess the plaintiffs illegally, without adopting legal recourse and a week ago, he tried for the same, hence, the necessity to file this suit has arisen.

11.

That the defendant has been asked time and again to desist from illegally dispossessing the plaintiffs from the disputed property without adopting legal recourse, but he is adamant not to accede to the request of plaintiffs and two days ago, has finally refused to do so.

12.

That cause of action accrued to the plaintiffs against the defendant two days ago from his flat refusal.

13.

That as the disputed property is located in Multan and cause of action has accrued to the plaintiffs as against the defendant at Multan, hence, this Hon’ble court has got jurisdiction to try this suit.

14.

That the value for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction of court is fixed at Rs. 1,000/-, which is immune from levy of court fee. In view of the above respectful submissions, it is humbly prayed that a decree for declaration to the effect that the plaintiffs are the lawful lessees of defendant under the Lease Agreement dated 26.1.1999 in the property detailed below and the defendant is not entitled to lease out this property during the subsistence of aforementioned lease agreement to anybody else; And also; A decree for permanent injunction as a consequential relief restraining the defendant from illegally and forcibly dispossessing plaintiffs from disputed property for all times to come and also from making any hindrances in the peaceful user of disputed property by plaintiffs during the subsistence of lease period i.e. till 30.4.2008. Humble Plaintiffs,

Dated: _________ Through: Mian Abdul Aziz Naseem, Advocate High Court, 123-District Courts, Multan. Verification: Verified on oath at Multan this 1st day of March, 2002 that all the contents of the above-titled plaint are correct and true to the best of our knowledge and belief. Plaintiffs

IN THE COURT OF LEARNED SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MULTAN.

Civil Suit No. __________/2002 Mr. Hasnain Ahmad Khan etc. VS.

Haji Muhammad Rafique

Application U/o 39, Rules 1 & 2 read with Sec-151 C.P.C. Respectfully Sheweth: 1.

That the above captioned civil suit is being filed today in this Hon’ble Court; facts in detail whereof have been narrated in the plaint which may kindly be considered as part & parcel of this application.

2.

That the plaintiffs, with the consent of defendant, have incurred substantial amount on the uplift of disputed property and are regularly abiding by all the conditions as agreed in the lease agreement. They have paid the monthly rent of demised premises uptodate to the defendant. But inspite of all this, the defendant has lurried dishonest and wants to dipossess the plaintiffs from disputed property through illegal means. In case he is not restrained from this foul act, then in that eventuality, the plaintiffs would suffer irreparable loss.

3.

That all the ingredients necessary for grant of stay order tilts in favour of plaintiffs. It is unfitness of things that the lis should remain intact till the final decision of this suit. In view of above respectful submissions, it is prayed that defendant be directed to maintain status quo at the spot. Humble applicants,

Dated: _______ Through: Mian Abdul Aziz Naseem, Advocate High Court, 123-District Courts, Multan.

IN THE COURT OF LEARNED SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MULTAN.

Civil Suit No. __________/2002 Mr. Hasnain Ahmad Khan etc. VS.

Haji Muhammad Rafique

STAY APPLICATION AFFIDAVIT of: Hasnain Ahmad Khan S/o Manzoor Ahmad Khan, caste Chingwani Baloch, R/o Paigah, Dera Ghazi Khan.

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