' RIAZ AHMAD KHAN, J.--- This judgment is directed to dispose of Writ Petition No,1241 of 2010.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is a tenant under respondent No,3 and in possession of shop situated at Plot No,68-E, Jinnah Avenue, Blue Area, Islamabad. Respondent No,3/landlord filed ejectment petition against the petitioner/tenant on the grounds of default as well as expiry of agreement. The said petition was contested by the petitioner/tenant. Issues were framed; evidence was recorded and thereafter the learned Rent Controller accepted the ejectment petition vide order dated 19-12-2009 on the ground of expiry of agreement; however, issue of default was decided in favour of the tenant. Accordingly, the ejectment order was passed and the tenant was directed to vacate the premises in dispute within 30 days. Feeling aggrieved of the said order, the tenant/petitioner filed appeal before the District Judge, which was entrusted to the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Islamabad. The appeal was dismissed vide order dated 15-3- 2010. Feeling aggrieved of the same, present writ petition has been filed.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner/tenant contended that respondent No,3/landlord is a private limited company; the ejectment petition was filed through Muhammad Aslam Minhas, Secretary of the company, but no authorization letter was filed along with the ejectment petition. According to the learned counsel, the ejectment petition as such was not competent and on this score alone was liable to be dismissed. It was however, admitted that the lease agreement between the parties had expired on 31-7-2005. The learned counsel in support of his contentions, referred to the case- law, reported as PLD 2005 Karachi 478, PLD 2008 Karachi 540, PLD 1991 Lahore 381 and PLD 1971 SC 550.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No,3/landlord submitted that though the authorization letter had not been filed along with the ejectment petition, yet during the course of evidence, the same was filed and exhibited as Exh.A-1. Learned counsel for the respondent/landlord in support of his contention, referred to the case law, reported as 2009 SCMR 846.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record.
6. Admitted position in the present case is that the landlord had filed ejectment petition, but along with the petition, no resolution passed by the Board was attached. Similarly, in the petition too, it was not mentioned that the person, through whom ejectment petition was filed, was authorized by the board through any resolution. The petition was not even signed by the person, through whom the ejectment petition was filed. During the course of evidence, authorization letter was produced, which was actually issued by Muhammad Aslarn Minhas through whom the ejectment petition has been filed and on the basis of this authorization letter he authorized Sheikh Wagar Ahmed to give statement of evidence in the case. The said letter was not a resolution passed by the Board.
7. Judgment reported as 2006 SCMR 437 clarifies the position. In the said case, the ejectment petition was dismissed by the trial Court as well as by the appellate Court on the sole ground that the person, who signed the ejectment petition, was not authorized by the petitioner company through a resolution of Board of Directors nor any power of attorney was executed in his favour for institution of ejectment petition/proceedings. Constitution petition against the order of appellate Court was dismissed by the High Court on the same ground and the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan, while maintaining the order of the High Court as well as lower Courts, dismissed the petition for leave to appeal.
8. Seeking guidance from the above said judgment, I hold that the ejectment petition was not maintainable and therefore, this writ petition is accepted; while setting aside the judgments of the learned Additional District Judge, Islamabad dated 15-3-2010 and the learned Rent Controller, Islamabad dated 19-12-2009, the ejectment petition is dismissed. However, the landlord will have a right to file fresh ejectment petition in accordance with law; rules and procedure. This judgment would not come in way of the landlord in filing fresh petition.