1985 PLP 865 (SCMR)

MIAN BURHANUDDIN KHAN, J.‑‑The dispute in the present petition relates to shop No.714 Aabpara Market, Islamabad. The said shop is owned by the respondent‑Company and was rented out to the petitioner at a monthly rent of Rs.800 on 2‑6‑1982 respondent‑Company instituted a suit for recovery of possession of the said shop against he petitioner in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Islamabad on the rounds that the petitioner defaulted in payment of rent from April to g June, 1982; that the tenancy was from month‑to‑month basis which was terminated on 22‑2‑1982 through legal notice; that the arrears of rent of Rs.1,600 per month were claimed in the suit. The plaint was signed and verified by one Mr.Khalid Parvez on behalf of the respondent Company. Written statement was filed denying the averments made in the plaint in particular, the authority to institute the suit. The learned Judge framed the following issues:‑ (1) Is the plaintiff estopped from bringing the action? (2) Is the suit mala fide in view of preliminary objection No.2 of the written statement? (3) Whether the defendant is entitled to the compensation for improve ments effected by him and also good will from the plaintiff? (4) Is the suit incompetent? (5) Whether the plaintiff terminated the lease of defendant by issuing him the requisite notice, if not so, with what effect? (6) Is the defendant a defaulter? (7) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the decree for possession and mesne profits on the grounds detailed in the plaint?

2. After recording the evidence the learned Senior Civil Judge decreed the suit with costs vide judgment and decree, dated 5‑3‑1983 and the petitioner was directed to vacate the shop by 22‑4‑1983. Decree for payment of Rs.10,186 as arrear of rent and Rs.20,000 as compensation was also granted to the respondent. Appeal filed by the petitioner was partly allowed by the learned District Judge per order, dated 26‑5‑1984 whereby dispossession of the petitioner from the shop in dispute, was upheld but decree for compensation was modified and rate of arrear of rent was reduced from Rs.1,600 to Rs.800 and petitioner was allowed to vacate the shop within a period of two months. Petitioner then filed e civil revision which was dismissed in limine vide the impugned judgment of the Lahore High Court.

3. Learned counsel's main contentions are that Mr. Khalid Parvez had no authority from the respondent‑Company to institute the suit for possession against the petitioner; respondent being a Company could only act through a Resolution of the Board of Directors of the Company which must be proved to have been approved in accordance with law; that documents Exh.P.4 which purports to be a copy of the Resolution of the Board of Directors is not a genuine document and appears to have been fabricated to meet the objection of the petitioner; that the so‑called Resolution of the Board of Directors was not a legally proved document. It was not even tendered in evidence by Mr. Khalid Parvez who appeared as P.W.1. In view of the objection as to the unauthorized institution of the suit, it was obligatory on the respondent‑Company to prove the resolution by producing Minutes Book of the Company.

4. We have examined the contentions raised by the learned counsel and would refer to issue No.(4) which pertains to the present objection. In the trial Court this issue was decided against the petitioner in the following manner: "This issue was not pressed. The objection is for the sake of objection" This being the case the petitioner has got no ground to agitate this point afresh. It is also on the record that the Resolution authorizing Mr. Khelid Parvez to institute the suit was produced by the learned counsel for the respondent‑Company at the end of the trial which was placed on record and was accepted without any objection as to its genuineness. We find this petition has no merit and the same is I accordingly, dismissed. M. Z. M. Petition dismissed.