–Contrary to actor’s legal team’s claim, house’s owner says he had rented property to one Fahad Noor in Jan this year
–Actor demands security, arrest of all persons nominated in FIR; claims had refused Usman Malik’s marriage proposal
LAHORE: Contrary to actress Uzma Khan’s claim of being the legal occupant of the house she resides in, Pakistan Today has found that the property in Defence Housing Authority (DHA) was rented out to one Fahad Noor in January and the landlord does not even know that she was residing there.
While addressing a presser at the Lahore Press Club on Thursday, Uzma’s legal team had claimed that the house the accused broke into did not belong to Usman Malik or his wife Amna Usman, a claim that had been made by the latter in a video released earlier, but instead their client was the legal occupant of the property.
During the press conference, the actress, her sister Huma Khan, and her lawyers Advocate Mian Ali Ashfaq and Barrister Hassaan Khan Niazi talked about the merits of the case.
Advocate Ali said that there were problems with the FIR [First Information Report] lodged in the case and said that the house where the incident took place did not belong to Usman or his wife Amna.
He said that the property was owned by one Babar Naseem and Uzma had signed the rental agreement with him. He later said that house was actually owned by a third-party, who had rented it to Babar, a close friend of Uzma, and it has been in her possession. He promised the media that the rental agreement would be shared after the press conference but no such document was provided after the event.
However, Pakistan Today has learnt on good authority that the house – 45-F DHA Phase 6 – is indeed owned by Babar but it was not rented out to Uzma, rather it was given to Fahad Noor early in January for a monthly rent of Rs180,000.
Babar’s legal representative told Pakistan Today that the property was never rented out to Uzma to begin with nor did his client know her in any capacity. He said that the house was rented out to Fahad for personal occupation and they were currently checking whether the property was sublet by the tenant or not. However, he added that according to their knowledge, the tenant and his family were residing in the house. He further said that neither the owner of the property nor any person associated with him has any concern with the parties involved in this dispute.
Barrister Hassaan did not show the rental agreement, but said that the house’s owner was approached by the property tycoon’s family and he would share it once he presents it before the SSP (investigation).
Advocate Ali told the media that Amna has implicated herself in the case through her video. He said that the police are yet to arrest the persons nominated by them in the case.
The lawyer said that the FIR has been registered under Section 506 whereas Section 506 (b) is applicable to this case. “Under Section 506 (b), a person can be imprisoned for 10 years whereas Section 506 is bailable and lighter,” he said. “The police have not arrested anyone so far and the persons nominated in the case have not secure a bail either.”
He added that the police have said that they are under pressure.
Advocate Ali put forward three demands on behalf of Uzma. “We should be provided security as we are being harassed by people on telephone, the DIG investigation should be personally involved in the case so that the probe is not biased, and thirdly, we want the persons nominated by us to be arrested immediately,” he said.
Responding to a question about Amna’s claim of having warned her multiple times, Uzma said that she had never been contacted by Amna before. “The day she broke into my house was the first time I saw her,” she claimed.
Uzma also denied speculation that she would accept money from the property tycoon to settle the matter with his daughters, adding that all she needs is justice.
“Usman had proposed marriage to me, but I had refused and I have proof of this as well,” she said. When the media asked her what Usman was doing at her place on the night of the incident, she did not answer.