2010 PLP 282 (YLR)

FAISAL ARAB, J.

The present petition has been filed by the petitioner, who is tenant of the respondent No.1. The respondent No.1 filed application under section 8 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 for the fixation of fair rent. The learned Rent Controller fixed the fair rent which was challenged by the petitioner in the appeal before the District Court which appeal too was dismissed, hence, the present petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner at the very outset did not address this court on the merits of the case but submitted that the person who initiated the legal proceeding against the petitioner was not authorized to initiate such legal proceedings and the power of attorney that has been executed in his favour is not based on any authorization of a resolution of the Board of Directors of respondent No.1. He submitted that the power of attorney requires that at least two persons should have acted as attorney. In support of his arguments he relied upon the case-law reported as PLD 1997 Kar. 62, PLD 1966 SC 684 and PLD 1971 SC

550. In response to the first argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that at least two persons should have initiated the legal proceedings, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 has drawn the attention of this court to the rent application which has been signed by two officers of the respondent No.1. When asked by this court as to on what basis the executants of the power of attorney derived the power to delegate the authority to the attorney, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 has produced the Articles of Association of the respondent No.1, dated 13-8-1941, under the seal of the Registrar of the Companies, Bombay, as at that time the office of the Registrar was in Bombay. Article-111(13) of the Articles of Association confers powers on the Director of the Companies to institute, conduct, defend, compound or abandon any legal proceedings. Article-115(3) of Articles of Association authorizes the Director to appoint attorneys for such purposes and with such powers and authorities which are conferred and vested upon the Directors. Reading these provisions of Articles of Association with the power of attorney that has been executed in favour of the attorney in the present case, it is quite apparent that the authority to appoint attorney is derived from the Articles of Association of the respondent No.1. The ratio of the judgments that have been cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner is quite clear that when the power is conferred on any officer of the company by the Articles of Association, there is no need for any resolution of the company. In the present case as the executants of the power of attorney were the members of the Executive Board of the respondent No.1, they derived powers from the Articles of Association. Therefore there was no need for any separate resolution for appointment of attorney on behalf of the respondent No.1. With regard to the requirement that at least two persons should have been acted as attorney, admittedly two officers of the Bank have signed the fair rent application before the Rent Controller. Therefore there is no legal infirmity. The proceedings were legally initiated by the officers of the company who have acted on the basis of power of attorney. Hence there is no legal infirmity which would had vitiate the legal proceedings. In the circumstances these petitions are dismissed. H.B.T./A-141/K Petition dismissed.