Syed Maqsood Shah Bukhari Vs. Federation of Pakistan through Secretarty, Ministry of law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs, Islamabad and others.

IN THE FEDERAL SHARIAT COURT

(Original Jurisdiction)

PRESENT

MR. JUSTICE DR. FIDA MUHAMMAD KHAN

MR.JUSTICE RIZWAN ALI DODANI

MR.JUSTICE SHEIKH AHMAD FAROOQ

SHARIAT PETITION NO. 03/1 OF 2013

Sycd Maqsood Shah Bukhari 256-FF Phase-IV, DHA, Lahore

House No.6 Lain 5 Raing Road Westridge 3, Rawalpindi Canntt.

Petitioner

Versus

Federal Government through Secretary M/o Law & Justice, Islamabad.

.... Respondent

Counsel for the petitioner In person Counsel for the Federation Mr. Muhammad Nazir Abbasi, Advocate

For the Punjab Government Ch. Saleem Murtaza Mughal, Asstt: Advocate General

For the KPK Government Mian Saadullah Jandoli, Asstt: Advocate General

For the Balochistan Mr Muhammad Azam Khan Khattak Addll. Advocate General

Date of Institution 02.04.2013

Date of hearing 02 05.2013

Date of decision 02.05.2013

JUDGMENT

DR. FIDA MUHAMMAD KHAN. Judge.- Petitioner Syed

Maqsood Shah Bukhari has through this petition, challenged the following Laws,/Acts:-

“1. The Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009,

2.The Punjab Rented Premises Ordinance, 2007;

3.The Punjab/NWFP/Baluchistan Rent Restriction Ordinance,

4.The Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979; and 5 The Cantonment Rent Restriction Act, 1963.”

According to the petitioner these laws are against the Injunctions of Islam as laid down in the Holy Quran and Sunnah of The Holy Prophet

(S.A W).

2.The petitioner, in support of his claim, has relied on the following verses of the Holy Quran. 3 85, 3.139, 22:78, 72 21, 4.119,

3.The petitioner was heard m person. He contended that on careful study of Verse No. 22.78. of the Holy Quran, it becomes clear

Shanat Petition No 03/1 of 2013

that Allah Almighty has commanded human beings -male and female alike - to earn livelihood by doing work Therefore, if any person does not work, he defies the Commandments of Allah He cited a few examples from Ihadat, like prayer and fasting, which eveiy Muslim person has to peiform himself and no one else can perform the same on his behalf He added that these examples prove and make incumbent on every person to keep on working and eat from only what he earns himself by his own hands. Accordingly as a rule, he concluded, Islamic Shariah docs not allow any body to charge rent from his/her tenant. The petitioner also referred to early history of Islamic administration, claiming that no rent was ever charged by the Holy Prophet or the Rightly guided Caliphs. However, he did not give any authentic reference to support his contention

4.It is pertinent to point out, at the outset, that the petitioner has not fulfilled, in his petition, requirements of the procedural rules of the Federal Shariat Court, as he has challenged more than one law in a single petition while under rule 7(2) of the FSC Procedure Rules, it has

been specifically provided that whenever a petitioner claims more than one law or provision thereof to be repugnant to the injunctions of Islam, he shall file a separate petition in respect of each law The petitioner, therefore, by challenging more than one law in a single petition has failed to follow these rules, which having been made under the Constitution, have constitutional force.

5 Moreover, we may point out that this Court has alieady examined the following laws relating to rents as mentioned heremunder The Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959 in S S M No.JOl/P/83 The NWFP Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959 m S S.M.N0.2S/NWFP/84, Baluchistan Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 m S S M No.22/B/94 , The Sind Rented Premises Ordinance 1979 in S.S.No 42/'S/'84and the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act 1963 in S.S.M No.ll7/87.The Sind rented premises Ordinance 1979 was also examined m, Shariat Petition 5/ 1/1985 & 9/L,60/1/1990 reported in PLD 1992 FSC 286.

6.A Full Court has examined some of these laws (i e the Cantonment Rent Restnctin Act. 1963 and the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979), in Shariat Petitions as well, vide its judgment which is

reported as PLD 1992 page 286. However, appeal against the said judgment is still pending before the Hon'ble Shariat Appellate Bench of Supreme Court.

7.As for as the legality of contract of rent lease ijarah according to Islamic Injunctions is concerned, the Muslim jurists are unanimous on the point that this is a valid legal contract which is duly authenticated by the Holy Qur’an, Sunnah of the Hob. Prophet( ^ A*-'j 4Mc- ) and Ijma’ All Companions of the Holy Prophet ( ) unanimously hold that “ljarah” is a lawful contract They themselves practised all lawful forms of this contract.

8.The Federal Shariat Court while examining some of these laws in Ashfaq Ahmad vs. Government of Pakistan (PLD 1992 FSC286), referred to above, has discussed the legality of the contract of Ijara and Muzarat and held

y f o~ j ^ If ~ v,•iJ t f j ) J s j k*-i Cl *L=i c / -■ - C L C J* >J j ( C o n t r a c t s t>J i a ^ J t

Shariat Petition No 03 I of 2013

( 1-j> uO(_jy 'i__0

si)6 S&J ■ vS^JLji • i •

(1 7:34 S \ / \ j-)-^ 'if J ' y ( 4 ' L ~ — A £ ^ ^ |U > /ly y V £y /*ty t/1 " U " i'1/"o ^ / i J ”;>J"a iTu'11dy^s* ,j.i J- i/_*x:

- J”^y *e_.ee^J .*.J.v-'.A—S~~/ -- — / /I Ji>‘

J-~ )/c-X iif . —‘i — / ' 0-' — Jjf.hy> '* t-v-L^y— y,y

!A*4 V-‘V J . -

OA

‘- U: >/> u ^ 1$'NJ —:1J <3 4/r” *->?‘ '•— L»0 1- ~ JlyJ fe ~ ^ I .'-•'V .'Oj^^jyvi^wt1 J -e_iTy.ee-1"\j~J”' w:|ZiL-ifw'i.1,' -ic.'^O' '^ t-.^4 y .w'”/ i7! "

. C" >-c^^ ~ <0 e—&0 cl--z—0 ^ ‘\^ j 0 o-~,‘jZi,) (period) a -*0 e^i_u>U'yjl^r>z- 3jw '.;.a v-■1/ s 1 ;jV^-l ' . J"~w'i‘i/U P J> s'-^-*>i/ * Jy-'Jpl - i_y:Z_y Jo^A i J~.ee -e_y* *j£ •**' j .J l><w~£ '~-a~—> i—1/ •l~4 i,J

w >L.^Lw« L jJ£L«oU,i ^ ^ jJ L '

•—t^.. ■—»- »/“ ^

y- V -•> 5 1__■ i1^ s’l". •'i <*^ — ■

/ - • - - u-* a \ y <, ' ~ VJ--* W,' ‘ /- v 0 ^ J 0 3-1 y y.l J \y.

k

_ l - r i C _ J y ?I y i f J w 1 ^ jjll J ' \j" j/ ij.lly c l J 'l AS/ Z-y-1- f /_> JL 4? wTi x J V J ' j!<<\J~ J ^ tL* -J » ;iJ ui ^ J l j l . ^ Jij£J Jx.ll J l l J - j Acll Alii _J-X= aIJI J j l J JI J U Ifcjl - ri£ -< C^cc J 3 Ac Ji_« AJ J j ' " <.1 lei

(3007 yP c x ^ <J jj\ / , & / 1 _ H ^ i . ai y j - A s i j ’l Ji\ ‘ .£-2801 y w<>4^ w'*’

/ / y iJU*!

j i? 1 1 jy.-x~ cl y i_ • jf* j" Ji J r > 11yj yj > 1" > 1 ‘ c— c_ J i h.1cc- J I -*- - J j a— J ' w‘«1 -• w" y ,J <1 . J . ' y Ji ^ J?0 "_j.*c i»oj i_ lry jy.'.^y y

I* ji .Ji'&'j’J .c_ >0 J.J- b c /,i /* /1

-CAj.il d lx x sJ ,';I)JA 1 0 w-■r| '..' w'- ' / -: w - • W V k 1s r. ^ i ^

• y l x } J» i / j } \ J c ^ y U j k - y I 1--'% i L x r y ^ s a 7 y j f *j J I • ^ b J l J i <j Jaxj^lI5 £*Aw ~vW)l0 w*S' -x o y oi< 3 o^-£ i oil y 7 jo yr j y 7 j / o-* * y v y x.

(14476 y £rmj , <8 2 . 1 0 0 y <J u l y _ > y

y cc.iio> ,-*17ji s'

7. . A X

s>'s' ilOi y wvi. jSl <» y zSX ? w-J W »J' -*y C'*y y - x‘i j iro j

* y y01.x y c ^ y / Jy

jy J/^ J / yl yy. Zl <L_X^ jyvl’-* J w-'O-17* yj <£_^ 0*1 ^ ty 2 y J wP < — '■S/ 2 >22 s**' ^ ~ >r-^* ^w’”1y tv1cTo"

. .£_ jly y l i f d * * - r f* - * '1 ly"*' | ~ y u iy ~ d— J \ ^ P j J i^ d J d J i\^ J ° j! J ^

Ajjijij

, A #

u/jf < -/» J * d" (1378 y ,29 / , p6ui w-yi <J i y u>?)

yj!)yCC->7 d2 W* ji.- j/Y J - 2l a2 j \ y L &7.\ o' \£j J "-<£_Ji1^^ y>d22 (

A/ J C- \$>j \ ) \$J>/* '* / ~ d— — d>~ v* «^-#>'/ _ f'fib P SjKr. J t j \}s j 0 / • y y - ~ f' , y 2t>y IdliTw> w'l? 0 y 2_L» J >'' d- : f. ^ j >j/ * c^'k* * w ** l) c-'u o d^vi / y y i; ;r- 2- -s-vr j, -'2 j ' J ? j '0 ”-0 J - d d > ‘ y l/ 2 . - > .* / w -y . _y. re- e? - >-•' Jiy y d^--v.' 3iy On caieful study of the verses relied upon by the Petitioner, we have found that these verses do not at all relate to or. in any way, support the claim vehemently argued by the petitioner.

10 . The logical reasoning of petitioner that without personal involvement in labour and hard workyno one is entitled to any remuneration is also absolutely without force. Islamic Injunctions regarding permissibility ot gift, Zakat/Ushr, inheritance etc. which i

Shanal Petition No 03/1 of 2013

confers rights of ownership by the recipients without any physical labour or contribution on his/her part are a few examples m this connection, which have been duly approved by the Holy Quran and Sunnah of the Holy Prophet ( )

11 Hence this petition besides having the procedural incurable flaw and being without any reference to a specific Versc/Hadith, is devoid of force and misconceived. Therefore, it is dismissed in limine.

Islamabad the 2rulMav, 2013 Mujeeb ur Rehtnanj*

\~*A' fa -