Adv Ayaz Gul

06/07/2026

PLJ 2026 SC 346

A tenant who disputes the landlord’s title or claims ownership is obliged to first surrender possession, as the law does not permit a tenant to retain possession under tenancy while simultaneously setting up hostile title against the landlord.

It is by now a settled proposition of law that where a person enters into possession as a tenant, he is estopped from disputing the title of the landlord so long as he continues to retain possession under the tenancy. The principle of estoppel is embodied in Article 1151 of the Qanun-eShahadat Order, 1984, which debars a tenant from denying the title of the landlord during the continuance of tenancy. The doctrine is founded upon public policy and is intended to preserve sanctity of contractual relationships and to prevent a tenant from approbating and reprobating simultaneously.

Even where a tenant claims to have acquired a share in ownership, the tenancy does not automatically dissolve so as to defeat ejectment proceedings, rather, the proper course available to such tenant is to seek his proprietary remedy through a civil suit for partition, and not to resist ejectment proceedings by raising disputed questions of title within the limited jurisdiction of the Rent Controller.

i. A tenant who subsequently asserts acquisition of ownership rights is bound by estoppel under Article 115 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, and cannot deny the landlord’s title while continuing in possession as tenant. If he intends to contest proprietary title, he must first surrender possession and thereafter seek adjudication of his claim.

ii. An ejectment petition against such tenant remains maintainable, since the mere assertion or alleged acquisition of ownership rights does not terminate the tenancy nor does it oust the jurisdiction of the Rent Controller.

iii. Where the tenant claims to have purchased a share or acquired co-ownership, the proper remedy is not to resist ejectment proceedings but to seek recourse through a civil suit for partition.

Pursuant to the above, we hold that a tenant, notwithstanding any subsequent claim of ownership, cannot retain possession as tenant and simultaneously deny the landlord’s title, as such conduct is barred by Article 115 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, referred to above. The tenant must first surrender possession before contesting title. Consequently, ejectment proceedings against such tenant remain maintainable. In case the tenant claims co-ownership by purchase of a share, his proper recourse lies in seeking partition through a competent civil forum and not in resisting ejectment proceedings within the limited jurisdiction of the Rent Controller.
C.P.L.A.806-P/2018
Nawab Khan & another v. Muhammad Yousaf & others

06/07/2026

The recommendation of 32 names for appointment as Additional Judges of the Sindh High Court has sparked serious debate within the legal fraternity. If merit, competence, integrity, and professional excellence are not the sole criteria for judicial appointments, public confidence in the administration of justice inevitably suffers.

The judiciary derives its legitimacy from independence not political patronage. Any perception that appointments are influenced by political considerations rather than legal acumen and years of distinguished service undermines the credibility of the institution and discourages countless hardworking lawyers who have devoted their careers to the profession.

Judicial office is not a political reward; it is a constitutional trust. The process of judicial appointments must be transparent, merit-based, and free from every form of external influence. Only then can the public maintain faith that justice is being administered impartially and without favour.

06/07/2026

Gul plaza case.
Tanveer Pasta, the trade union president, moved the District and Sessions Judge South for bail before arrest, and the court granted him interim bail.

02/07/2026

Friends are the family you choose.❤️

02/07/2026

The Judicial Commission of Pakistan has nominated an interview committee to conduct interviews for the appointment of Additional Judges in the Lahore, Sindh, and Islamabad High Courts.

01/07/2026

بوگس پے آرڈر اور پولیس مبینہ رشوت کیس: سندھ ہائی کورٹ کا آئی جی سندھ اور ایس ایس پی انویسٹی گیشن کو نوٹس، 9 جولائی کو طلب

سندھ ہائی کورٹ نے بوگس پے آرڈر کیس کی منصفانہ تفتیش کے لیے مبینہ طور پر لاکھوں روپے رشوت مانگنے اور دھمکیاں دینے کے خلاف دائر آئینی درخواست پر اہم حکم جاری کرتے ہوئے آئی جی سندھ، ایس ایس پی انویسٹی گیشن کورنگی اور دیگر فریقین کو 9 جولائی 2026 کو عدالت میں طلب کر لیا ہے۔

تفصیلات کے مطابق، درخواست گزار ساجد معروف نے اپنے وکیل کے توسط سے سندھ ہائی کورٹ میں آرٹیکل 199 کے تحت ایک آئینی درخواست (No. 3906/2026) دائر کی ہے، جس میں صوبہ سندھ، اسٹیبلشمنٹ ڈویژن، آئی جی سندھ، ڈی آئی جی کرائم انویسٹی گیشن عامر فاروقی، اور ایس ایس پی انویسٹی گیشن کورنگی-II محمد قیس خان سمیت دیگر کو فریق بنایا گیا ہے۔

درخواست گزار ساجد معروف نے عدالت کو بتایا کہ وہ ایک قانون پسند شہری ہیں اور انہوں نے کاروباری لین دین کے دوران ملزم کامران آفتاب کو تقریباً 2 کروڑ (20,000,000) روپے کا کیمیکل مٹیریل فراہم کیا تھا۔ بار بار ادائیگی کے تقاضے پر ملزمان کامران آفتاب اور عباس بٹ نے انہیں 6 مارچ 2026 کو 90 لاکھ روپے کا ایک پے آرڈر تھمایا۔ تاہم، جب یہ پے آرڈر میزان بینک کورنگی کراسنگ برانچ کراچی میں جمع کرایا گیا تو 12 مارچ 2026 کو بینک عملے نے مطلع کیا کہ مذکورہ پے آرڈر مکمل طور پر جعلی، بوگس اور من گھڑت ہے۔

درخواست میں مؤقف اختیار کیا گیا ہے کہ پے آرڈر جعلی نکلنے پر زمان ٹاؤن تھانے میں ملزمان کے خلاف مقدمہ نمبر 274/2026 درج کرایا گیا۔ مقدمہ درج ہونے کے بعد ملزمان نے سیشن کورٹ سے ضمانت قبل از گرفتاری حاصل کر لی اور پولیس افسران کے ساتھ مل کر کیس واپس لینے کے لیے درخواست گزار کو ہراساں اور ہراساں کرنا شروع کر دیا۔

درخواست گزار نے انتہائی سنگین الزام عائد کرتے ہوئے کہا کہ:
> "ایس ایس پی انویسٹی گیشن کورنگی-II محمد قیس خان اور ان کے ماتحت تفتیشی افسران نے کیس کی منصفانہ تفتیش کرنے کے عوض 10 لاکھ روپے کی غیر قانونی مراعات (رشوت) کا مطالبہ کیا۔

درخواست میں مزید کہا گیا ہے کہ ایس ایس پی محمد قیس خان نے کھلم کھلا دھمکی دی کہ اگر رشوت کی رقم ادا نہ کی گئی تو وہ اپنے اثر و رسوخ کا استعمال کرتے ہوئے اس مقدمے کو 'بی کلاس' (B-Class) یا 'سی کلاس' (C-Class) میں تبدیل کر کے خارج کر دیں گے اور درخواست گزار کو سنگین نتائج کا سامنا کرنا پڑے گا۔ درخواست گزار کے مطابق اعلیٰ پولیس حکام اور آئی جی سندھ کو تحریری شکایات بھیجنے کے باوجود کوئی کارروائی عمل میں نہیں لائی گئی۔

درخواست گزار نے عدالت عالیہ سے استدعا کی ہے کہ آفیشل فریقین کو قانون کے مطابق سخت کارروائی کرنے کا حکم دیا جائے، پولیس افسران کو ہراساں کرنے سے روکا جائے، اور انہیں و ان کے اہلخانہ کو ملزمان اور پولیس کی جابرانہ کارروائیوں سے مکمل تحفظ فراہم کیا جائے۔

سندھ ہائی کورٹ کے اسسٹنٹ رجسٹرار (رٹ) نور احمد کلہوڑو کے دستخط سے جاری کردہ نوٹس کے مطابق، عدالت نے کیس کی سنگینی کو مدنظر رکھتے ہوئے تمام فریقین کو 9 جولائی 2026 کو صبح 09:15 بجے ذاتی حیثیت میں یا بذریعہ وکیل پیش ہونے کا حکم دیا ہے، بصورتِ دیگر کیس کا فیصلہ یکطرفہ (Ex-parte) کر دیا جائے گا۔

01/07/2026

An advocate without research,
Is like a worrier without sword 🗡️🛡️.

29/06/2026

26/06/2026

Being a first-generation Advocate is not easy. Every day, many young lawyers struggle not only against the opposing side but also against discrimination in courtrooms, court offices, and even bar rooms. The lack of mentorship from some seniors and the indifferent attitude displayed on certain occasions by judicial officers often make the journey even more difficult.

Recently, I appeared in a remand proceeding where my client, a CCTV technician, was arrested in an FIR under Sections 380, 452, 504 and 506 PPC. His real "offence" was demanding the Rs.100,000 that remained unpaid after completing the CCTV installation at the complainant's house.

Months before the FIR, my client had already approached the same police station through a written application complaining that his payment was being withheld. Instead of receiving justice, he was later called to the complainant's house under the pretext of settling the dispute and was falsely implicated in a criminal case.

The FIR itself failed to specify a single allegedly stolen article, yet police custody was granted.

I argued every available legal point. After the proceedings, I respectfully asked the learned Magistrate whether my arguments were deficient so that I could improve as a young lawyer.

His answer was straightforward:

*"Your arguments were not weak. We cannot pass such an order at this stage. Let the investigation proceed."*

Two days later, my client was produced again. There was no recovery, no corroborative evidence, and no investigative progress. I filed a bail application. Although the prosecution was present and had already received notice, I was denied the opportunity to argue because the court insisted on a 24-hour notice period—despite the fact that such procedural requirements are frequently waived in similar matters.

The result?

A man whose alleged crime was demanding his lawful remuneration was sent to jail just before the Ashura holidays, effectively extending his incarceration without any meaningful progress in the investigation.

Our criminal justice system too often treats arrest as evidence, police allegations as truth, and personal liberty as a secondary consideration. Remand has become a routine formality rather than a judicial safeguard. Courts are expected to scrutinize the investigating agency, not merely endorse its requests.

Justice delayed by unnecessary procedural rigidity is no less harmful than justice denied. Every additional day an innocent person spends behind bars cannot be returned by a later acquittal.

As young lawyers, we do not seek favours. We seek consistency, courage, and judicial independence. We ask only that the same constitutional principles protecting liberty be applied equally, regardless of who stands before the Bench.

The strength of a judicial system is not measured by how many remands it grants, but by how fearlessly it protects individual liberty against arbitrary state action.

If courts become reluctant to exercise their judicial discretion at the earliest stage, then the promise that "bail is the rule and jail the exception" risks becoming little more than words written in law books.

The judiciary is the last hope of an ordinary citizen. When that hope begins to fade, public confidence in the rule of law fades with it.