1. ' MUNIB AHMAD KHAN, J.--- These four rent appeals have been taken together as according to learned counsel the issue involved in all these appeals is the same i.e. Personal requirement of the respondent and that the evidence of respondent in one case has been relied upon in other cases likewise the evidence of one of the appellants has been relied upon in other cases with the consent of the parties. They further submit that except some difference in the area of the shop or the rent, all the four shops are situated on ground floor while stand of all the appellants as well as of the respondent was the same. In the light of above, all these four appeals are decided by this judgment.
2. ' Brief fact of the factual position involved in this case is that the respondent-bank filed four applications under section 17 of the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963, (hereinafter referred to as C.R.R. Act) against all the four appellants contending that it is owner of Kehkashan Complex constructed on Plot No.GC-3, Block-8, Clifton, Karachi, while the opponent is the tenant in respect to a shop on ground floor and that the Bank has established its model branch in the said complex with additional facility to the customers in the shape of shops in the building. It has been stated that after expiry of rent agreement, long before, the tenants continued and rent is being deposited by them with the Rent Controller. The respondent-Bank has further submitted that it had drawn a final plan to move its regional headquarter to the above complex and thereafter the respondent has decided to convert this complex into a corporate branch and to increase its services including drive-in ATM facility, which requires a through and through passage from place of entry to exit and that can only be provided after rental premises is vacated by the tenants. It has further been pointed out that for the security reason, these shops are also to be vacated and in such a situation, the applicant is hard-pressed for want of space to materialize their expansion plan as in the absence thereof the respondent-Bank is facing great hardship. Hence, the premises be got vacated as the same is requires in good faith for bona fide use of the respondent and that it does not possess any other building in cantonment area or in close vicinity and that the need was intimated to the opponent through a legal notice dated 27-4-1996 but with no result, therefore, eviction case was filed.
3. ' The appellant/opponent's case is that the tenancy etc. Has not been denied while there was no dispute except the personal need and that the model branch was already there but shifting of regional headquarter was not in their knowledge and that the N.B.P. Is the statutory body with its headquarter in Karachi. It has been stated that the appellant is a tenant since long and after the expiry of the agreement, the appellant has become statutory tenant and that the filing of the case for personal need is not bona fide but with the intention to pressurize the tenant for increase of rent as in the past the rent was intended to be increased to Rs.25 per sq. Ft. From Rs.4 per sq. Ft. It has also been denied that the Bank wanted to convert the complex into a corporate Branch while allegations in respect to the security were totally denied. It has also been asserted that the building has been planned in a way that a shopping arcade be provided and it is to be used as such while the shops are not required by the Bank in good faith as the area in possession of it is more than sufficient for its need and that the premises of the appellant is not suitable for the Bank's need. It has been stated that the tenant cannot be evicted and that the steps taken are mala fide and illegal with the intention to increase the rent as there is no cause of action for the Bank to file a case.
4. ' From the contention of the parties following issues were framed:---
(1) Whether the applicant has finally planned to move its Regional Headquarter to the Kehkashan Complex which has since been converted into corporate branch?
(2) Whether the applicant has increased his services and increase includes drive in ATM which imperatively requires a through passage from both entrances?
(3) Whether the one outlet available to the applicant is surrounded by shops and in an emergency situation would prove to be a security hazard?
(4) Whether the applicant owns or possess any other building in the circumstances in a very close vicinity to Cantonment?
(5) Whether the applicant needs it for its personal use or the present application is on the pretext of enhancing the rents of the shops?
(6) Whether adequate notice was given to opponent for vacation of the premises by them?
(7) What should the order be?
5. ' The respondent examined its attorney Syed Taqi Hussaini, who was cross examined while one of the tenants namely, Abdul Karim Khan (Rent Case No.68 of 1996) was examined and his evidence was relied upon and considered in all the rent applications.
6. 'The learned Rent Controller, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, passed separate orders in each case allowing thereby the rent applications with the directions to all the four tenants to vacate the IA premises within 90 days. Hence these rent appeals.
7. 'Mr. Shehanshah Hussain, learned counsel for the appellants has raised three basic points towards the maintainability by stating that the building was constructed for a shopping arcade and that is to be maintained by retaining the shops; secondly, the signatory of the rent application has no power to file the case; and thirdly, as National Bank of Pakistan, the applicant is a statutory and Government controlled organization, therefore, Cantonment Rent Restriction Act would not apply to it. As far as merit is concerned, learned counsel has submitted that there is no personal need as the building was constructed as a shopping arcade and admittedly corporate branch of the bank had already been shifted to the building and is working while there is no restriction in respect to the ATM working as the incoming cars having free access to it and exit to it and the shops in the building are causing no hindrance. He has further stated that mala fide in the shape of personal need is apparent as the basic intention of the respondent was to enhance rent as in the past it demanded rent of Rs.25 per sq.Ft. Instead of Rs.4 per sq. Ft. Prevalent rent while there is no security hazard by existence of the shops and, in the past many years, neither there is any threat nor any incident. Learned counsel has pointed out paras.6, 7 and 8 of the application in these respect to show that the Regional Headquarter/Corporate branch of the Bank has already been shifted while cars are reaching the ATM installed by the branch and there is no security hazard.
8. ' Learned counsel has cited PLD 1971 SC 550(B) on the ground that the suit by a company cannot be filed until authorized by a resolution passed by company's Board of Directors, 2000 SCM R 472 is cited by the learned counsel on the ground that the filing of ejectment application is not a routine business of the Bank hence the Manager of the concerned branch of the Bank cannot be considered, in law, to possess requisite authority to proceed with such ejectment case. Another authority PLD 1999 Kar. 260 has also been cited by the learned counsel to support non- maintainability, which says that burden to prove maintainability of suit lies upon the Bank and that the authorized attorneys were not examined as a witness, hence burden to show that the suits were filed by authorized attorneys were upon the plaintiff. On merit, the learned counsel has cited PLD 1985 Kar.
624. Learned counsel submits that there is no resolution from the Bank that the shops are required by the Bank for personal need and in the absence thereof the contention of the signatory cannot be accepted. He has further cited PLD 1986 Kar. 637 on the ground that burden to prove that the premises is required in good faith lies, upon the landlord and that is to be ascertained from the circumstances of the case. He submits that the factual position, which has come on record shows that there is no resolution by the Bank nor the Bank has succeeded in establishing that the premises to be converted from a shopping arcade to a simple Bank building nor the Bank has succeeded in proving that the premises were required in good faith. He has cited 1999 CLC 1676 on the ground that mere desire of a landlord cannot be considered as a need.
9. ' On the other hand, Mr. Zubair Quraishy, learned counsel for the respondent Bank has argued that the case is very well maintainable as there is nothing in the C.R.R. Act to exempt any building nor the appellant has succeeded to point out any law, rules or circular; that the rent agreement with the tenant was filed by an attorney of the Bank while the case was also filed by an attorney and evidence was also led by him by producing a power of attorney, which is on record in the R&P. He states that no question in respect to the validity of the attorney or authority of the attorney was raised although there was an opportunity of the tenant to ask question and that the objection of the appellant that the shopping arcade to be maintained for all times to come is misconceived as there is no binding in law and it is the discretion of the landlord to rent out the building or its portion or to use it for his own. He states that the basic ground raised in the application was personal need of the Bank to expand its corporate branch which, due to its requirement had already been shifted but was squeezed due to non-availability of the space and that the mala fide of a landlord has been taken care of by the law itself as if a landlord does not occupy or use the premises required for personal need within the given time, then the law provides tenant to make an application for restoration of its possession. He submits that this act under the law covers the apprehension of the tenant. He submits that the security hazards cannot be discarded keeping in view that National Bank of Pakistan is a Government Organization and frequent movements of the cars into it may cause any untoward incident. He states that in the evidence brought on record there is nothing to dislodge the personal requirement.
10. ' Learned counsel has cited 1989 SCMR 1336 and has pointed out its Head Notes 'A', 'C' and 'D'. He submits that the only condition to be satisfied by a landlord was that he required the premises in good faith and that the intention of the Bank is deemed to be in good faith until proved otherwise and that the appellants have failed to prove bad faith. He submits that in the said authority, it has been held that the landlord was not required to state the nature of the business which he intends to carry out as same was neither essential nor formed put' of cause of action and that the demand of higher rent, by itself, would not cast any doubt on the personal bona fide requirement where the factum of bona fide requirement was independently proved. Another authority cited by him is 1990 SCM R 1070, Head Notes 'IV and 'D', which lay down that it was not requirement of law that the landlord in its ejectment application discloses the nature of business for which the premises was required. The said authority further lay down that when the disputed premises consisting of number of rooms was leased out then landlord was not required to state how many rooms he desired out of the same. 1996 SCM R 97 has been cited on the point that if the building is not being occupied by the landlord then possession can be restored to the tenant. 1996 SCM R 1178 has been cited on the point that the intention of the landlord to run a departmental store in the premises cannot be doubted until there was a cogent evidence and sufficient proof that it was not possible and that the same depends exclusively on the choice of the landlord. 1990 M LD 538 has been cited on the point that it was not necessary for the banking company to submit a resolution or Managing Director of the Bank to be summoned but it was to be seen that the person filing the proceedings was authorized by the Bank or not.
11. ' After hearing the learned counsel and going through the material on record, it appears that the case has been filed by the bank through its attorney whose power of attorney has been filed during the proceedings but it has not been challenged that the executant of the attorney has no authority to sign that attorney. It has further been observed that the rent agreement was executed with the appellants by the Bank through its attorney and the application for eviction was also filed by an attorney while affidavit-in-evidence was also filed by the attorney of the Bank. Cross-examination conducted by the appellant on the attorney of the Bank is very material, which shows how the appellant has challenged the authority and bona fide need of the Bank. Same is reproduced as under:--- "The opponents had never made a default in the payment of rent even till today. It is incorrect that we enhanced the rent of Rs.600%. Voluntarily says we want the opponent to vacate the premises. It is correct that vide letter No.MOD.ADMN/88/3281 dated 8-10-1988 we demanding the enhancement of rent from 25 per sq. Foot intensive of 4 per sq. Foot, but no agreement till today. The regional office has removed in the premises about 3/4 years back and for that purpose and due to lack of space and we wanted them to vacate the premises. Though the regional office shifted to a premises but we need more space into corporate branch and for that purpose we need to have the premises vacated from the opponent. Though we have not need any written complaint to increase the number of its services including the Drive-in ATM which obviously and necessarily requires a thorough passage from both entrances and we need the space to provide facility to the customer and for the security purpose."
12. ' Although National Bank of Pakistan is a statutory body but the learned counsel for the appellant has failed to point out as to how the CRRA will not apply and the appellants, who are admittedly tenants of the Bank, will in what manner be controlled or dealt with. The definition section 2(G) of the CRRA has defined the landlord who is a person entitled to receive rent on his own account or on behalf or for the benefit of any other person etc. While eviction application under section 17 is also to be made through a landlord therefore keeping in view as to how the landlord has been defined in the Act and permitted to file application under section 17, the objection of appellants' counsel has no force. Even otherwise, the attorney of the Bank is throughout on the scene but his authority has not been challenged while the case remained under proceedings for a longer period from 1996 till 2000 and during that period the counsel of the Bank was appointed in both the proceedings of the Rent Controller and in this Court, which further establishes that the bank's permission in the matter was there while section 196 of the Contract Act, even in the absence of any authority to file rent case or an attorney, legalized such act on its behalf.
13. ' As far as bona fide need is concerned, several authorities pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent shows that when the landlord is coming in the witness box on solemn affirmation then his statement should not be doubted until there are rebuttals with sound proof. In the instant case, the appellants are enjoying the premises as a tenant since 1970 and, for a longer period, no action was taken by the Bank and now naturally with the growth in the business the Bank could require premises while there is un-rebutted proof that corporate branch Regional Headquarter has been shifted to the branch and the intention of the Bank was to convert that branch into Corporate branch, hence intention of the landlord cannot be doubted. It has further been observed that according to section 17(6) the law has itself provided a check upon the desire of a landlord by providing that if the landlord, after obtaining the premises in bona fide need does not possess the same within a month, then tenant may make an application to the Rent Controller for repossession.
14. ' In such a situation, when the need of the Bank has not been put under clouds nor demand of increased rent can jeopardize the bona fide need while shifting of the Regional Headquarter has not been disproved and the Bank's desire to expand its business after a longer time has not been specifically rebutted therefore the Rent Controller had rightly held that the need of the Bank was bona fide and ejectment has rightly been ordered. Hence its order is maintained and all the four above FRAs are dismissed.