' SH. AZMAT SAEED, J---This appeal under section 15 of the Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 is directed against the order, dated 12-6-2006 whereby the appeal tiled by the appellant against the order of ejectment, dated 13-12-2002 was dismissed.
2. At the very outset, learned counsel for the respondent has taken a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the instant appeal on the ground that the same has not been instituted by a duly authorized person. It is contended by the learned counsel for the respondent that the appellant is a private limited company and the present appeal has been instituted through one Imran Ashraf its purported Chief Executive. However, said person is not authorized to institute the appeal on behalf of the appellant company. It is contended that there is nothing on the record to suggest that Imran Ashraf was authorized by the company on the basis of articles of association/resolution of its boards of directors or the power of attorney to institute the instant appeal, hence, the same is non est in the eye of law and thus liable to be dismissed. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the respondents relies on 2006 SCM R 437 Messrs A.M. Industrial Corporation Limited v. Aijaz Mehmood and others and PLD 1971 SC 550 Khan Iftikhar Hussain Khan Mamdot v. Ghulam Nabi Corporation Ltd.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant controverts the contentions as being raised in behalf of the respondent by contending that ejectment petition filed by the respondent against the appellant company which had been sued through its Chief Executive namely Imran Ashraf, hence, he was duly authorized to institute the appeal.
4. It is a settled law that any legal proceedings initiated on behalf of a limited company can only be instituted by a person authorized to do so on behalf of said company. In the instant case, there is no assertion in the appeal that Imran Ashraf is authorized to institute the instant appeal. By way of impugned order, dated 12-6-2006 the appeal filed on behalf of the appellant was dismissed inter alia on the ground that the same had not been instituted by a person duly authorized in this behalf.
A preliminary objection was taken with reference to this appeal, yet the appellant has not placed on record articles of association of the appellant company nor a resolution of its board of directors to establish that Imran Ashraf is authorized to institute this appeal. In fact, it is not even the case of the learned counsel for the appellant at the bar that said Imran Ashraf has been authorized by any resolution of the board of directors or under the articles of association of the company to file the instant appeal. In this view of the matter and in respectful agreement with the law laid down by the apex Court in the case reported as 2006 SCM R 437, I have no other option but to hold that this appeal has not been instituted by a duly authorized person. Dismissed accordingly.