RASAAL HASAN SYED, J.----This Constitutional petition calls into question orders dated 28.10.2019 and 10.2.2021 of the forums below whereby ejectment petition against petitioner was accepted and appeal there against was dismissed.
2. Facts out of which instant Constitutional petition sterns are that respondent No.2 filed an ejectment petition under section 19 of The Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009 (the "Act" ) for eviction of petitioner from rented premises inter alia on the grounds of expiry of period of tenancy , default in payment of rent, violation of terms and conditions of rent agreement, use of premises in violation of the terms of agreement and for changing the nature and character of the premises in breach of terms and conditions of the rent agreement. Petitioner filed application for leave to contest asserting that the ejectment application was filed by an unauthorized person, respondent No.2 concealed the material facts in ejectmen t petition, the premises was rented out by the Author of the Trust on 24.6.2005 against a fixed rent Rs.30,000/- per month and that the petitioner was regularly making payment of rent.
3. After considering the facts pleaded by both sides inclusive of grounds raised in petition for leave to contest, the Special Judge (Rent) dismissed the application of the petitioner for leave to contest vide order dated 28.10.2019 observing that the premises was rented out in the year 2005 through written tenancy agreement on monthly rent of Rs.30,000/-, period of tenancy had expired, Pirzada Rahat Aziz Chishti, Secretary of the Trust was authorized to file the ejectment petition, there was no denial of tenancy or relationship of landlord and tenant, the documents annexed with the ejectment petition negated the plea of petitioner and that the petitioner failed to fulfill the obligation of enhancing the rent 10% or to pay the rent at the enhanced rate and that after expiry of lease agreement, the tenancy was month to month which could be terminated by notice and that filing of ejectment petition was a notice of ejectment and that the petitioner was liable to eviction due to expiry of lease. It was observed that the application for leave to contest did not disclose sufficient grounds to grant leave. In view of these observations, application for leave to contest was dismissed, petitioner was directed to vacate the premises, security amount of Rs.90,000/- deposited with respondent No.2 was ordered to be returned to the petitioner who was directed to keep on paying all utility bills till vacation of the rented premises. Appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Lahore vide order dated 10.2.2021. In the instant Constitutional petition the two orders are subject-matter of challenge.
4. Learned, counsel for the petitioner , argued that the Secretary of the Trust, respo ndent No.2, was incompetent to initiate the ejectment proceedings, which objection was specifically raised in the application for leave to contest but the same was not properly attended to by the learned forums below . Places reliance on "Habib Bank Limited v.
Zelins 4 Limited and another" (2000 SCMR 472) and "Messrs A.M. Industrial Corporation Limited v. Ai/az Mehmood and others" (2006 SCMR 437). Contrarily learned counsel for the respondent No.2 vehemently controverted the submissions made and argued that the ejectment petition was competently filed, Resolution of the Board of Trustees and the Deed of Trust have been annexed by the petitioner itself with the instant Constitutional petition which proves beyond any shadow of doubt that the ejectment petition was competently filed and that the objection was correctly returned in the negative by the forums below .
5. Points raised have been duly considered and documents filed with the instant petition were minutely examined.
Perusal thereof reveals that the eviction of the petitioner was claimed on the grounds of expiry of tenancy , default in payment of rent and breach of terms and conditions of tenancy . In the application for leave to contest the petitioner admitted the tenancy agreement but denied the allegations of default. A preliminary objection was taken to the effect that the ejectment petition was filed by an unauthorized person which was not maintainable. It was asserted that the ejectment petition was not filed by the Author of the Trust, Managing Trust or the Trustees, therefore, it was not maintainable. Objections raised by the petitioner did not find favour with the Special Judge (Rent) who concluded that the petition was competen tly filed by an authorized person and that the petitioner was a defaulter who had failed to pay the rent with annual increase and that the tenancy period had expired, petitioner was liable to eviction on notice; the ejectment petition itself being notice, eviction was allowed on grounds of default in payment of enhanced rental and expiry of lease. In appeal, the Addl. District Judge modified the order to the extent that the petitioner was not liable to increase the rent annually but affirmed the findings of the Rent Tribunal on the question of maintainability of petition and af firmed eviction order on the ground of expiry of lease.
6. Main stance of the learned counsel for the petitioner was that the ejectment petition was not filed by the person duly authorized by the Board of Trustees and was not maintainable and that the minimum quorum of seven trustees was required for transacting the business of Trust in. its meeting by the Board and that no Resolution was passed by Board of Trustees and in his perception the ejectment petition was not competently filed as Pirzada Rahat Aziz Chishti was not competent to file the petition. In this context reliance has been placed on "Habib Bank Limited v. Zelins Limited and another" (2000 SCMR 472) and "Messrs A.M. Industrial Corporation Limited v.
Aijaz Mehmood and others" ( 2006 SCMR 437 ).
7. The facts of the cases are distinguisha ble. In Habib Bank Limited's case, it is evident that the ejectment petition was filed by a person who did not have any power of attorney; instead it was claimed that the ejectment petition was filed on the instructions of the Management, neither copy of power of attorney was filed nor any Resolution of the Bank authorizing the Branch Manager to file the ejectment petition was produced. It will be relevant to reproduce the material portion of the judgment where the facts have been reproduced: "Both the ejectment applications were contested by the tenants. Ultimately , by separate judgments both, dated 26- 8-1987, the ejectment applications were dismissed. Rent Controller held that the ejectment applications were not maintainable. It was held that the petitioner being a limited liability banking company , the ejectment applications had been filed by Messrs Ibrahim Bawani and Ghulam Muhammad claiming to be its attorneys but neither the power of attorney in their favour was produced along with the ejectment applications nor such power of attorney was filed during the proceedings of the cases and that subsequently P.W. Imad Nabi Siddiqui appeared on behalf of the petitioner bank but admitted in his cross-examination that the case had been filed on the oral instructions of the management and he also did not produce any power of attorney executed by the petitioner in favour of Ibrahim Bawani and Ghulam Muhammad."
It is evident that the plea raised was that either power of attorney or its copy ought to have been filed showing that there was authorization on behalf of the Bank to institute the ejectment proceedings or Resolution of the Bank evidencing such authorization ought to have been produced in evidence which was not done and that the decision to file ejectment petition against tenant of the Bank on the ground of default, suble tting, personal requirement, etc. could not be considered to be a routine matter so as to include it in the day-to-day business of the branch of the Bank nor the Branch Manager could be considered in law to possess requisite authority to prosecute such ejectment application or to competently pursue the matter . In this perspective the ejectment petition was observed to be incompetent. In the case of Messrs A.M Industrial Corporation supra the facts were that the ejectment petition was dismissed as neither Resolution of the Board of Directors or the power of attorney was executed in favour of the ejectment petitioner and, in any case, it was found that the name of the company had been struck off from the Register of Companies maintained by the Registrar , Joint Stock Companies and, being so, filing of ejectment petition without proper Resolution and that too for an unregistered company was found to be without authority .
8. It is obvious that the facts in the said cases are distinguishable. In the instant case ejectment petition was filed by respondent No.2 which is undeniably a Trust. Copy of the Deed of Trust was filed with the ejectment petition.
Copy of the Resolution passed by the Board of Trustees is available at page 43 of the instant petition which is to the following ef fect.
"Through resolution dated 21-06-2017 the board of trustees decided/resolved that as the tenants, the Pan Islamic Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. Syed Irshad Ali Road Hanjarwal Multan Road Lahore are not vacating the rented premises therefore legal proceedings should be initiated for that purpose.
In this regard Mr. Pirzada Rahat Aziz Chishti son of. Pirzada Muhammad Anwer Aziz Chishti Secretary Zainbia Trust CNIC # 35202-2044495-1 resident of House No. # 78 Block A3 Johar Town Lahore is authorized for filing the ejectment petition/case against the tenants, the Pan Islamic Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. and he would be fully authorized to do all things/acts in this regard i.e. Sign the power of attorney , sign the petition/applications, submit the fee/court fee, submit documents in the Court, give evidence. In short he would be fully authorized to do all acts necessary for the case/ejectment petition. His all acts/things done in this regard would be considered as done by the Zainabia Trust Hanjarwal Multan Road Lahore." Copy of the Resolution passed by the Board of Trustees was signed by Mrs. Parveen Irshad, who was company Autho r and also Managing Trustee of respondent No.2 and she was also the one who had executed the lease agreement on behalf of the Trust by which the petitioner was inducted into premises as tenant.
9. Faced with the situation, learned counsel submitted that the copy of the Resolution did not bear the date of issuance of the copy. If this objection is deemed to be of significance then possibly the Constitutional petition filed by the petitioner itself can be dismissed for the same reason. Perusal of the Reso lution in favour of Syed Shoaib Zahoor , Chief Executive of the petitioner private limited company , who filed the instant Constitutional petition on behalf of the company , shows that the said Resolution also does not bear any date of issuance. If the objection of the petitioner that the date of issuance of the document or copy had any significan ce then, of course, the petitioner itself shall also suffer adversely as its own petition will bear the same consequences for the alleged omission and particularly when copy of Memorandum and Articles of Association of the company have also not been filed. Be that as it may, the objection raised is not tenable in view of the rule articulated in "Rahat and Company through Syed Naveed Hussain Shah v. Trading Corporation of Pakistan Statutory Corporation, Finance and Trade Centre through Secretary or Chief Executive Officer" (PLD 2020 SC 366) wherein it was observed to the effect that if the Board of Directors had the authority to make appointment and to delegate the authority , then question of investing of authority by the Board of Director or as to whether the quorum at the meeting was complete or not, being a matter of indoor management could not be raised by a third party .
10. It is evident from the facts of the present case that the ejectment petition was filed by Pirzada Rahat Aziz Chishti, the Secretary of the Trust who was authorized through Resolution of the Board of Trustees. Copy , of the Deed of Trust and also the Resolution by the Board of Trustees authorizing Pirzada Rahat Aziz Chishti to file the ejectment petition against the petitioner and to pursue the proceedings, is available on the file. Copy of the Resolution has been signed by Co-author and Managing Trustee who had also signed the rent agreement on behalf of respondent No.2 by which the petitioner claimed tenancy of the premises; there was no dispute about the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. In the circumstances, the forums below rightly observed that the objection as to maintainability of the ejectment petition on the plea of incompetency was untenable and was devoid of any substance and that the ejectment petition could be allowed on the ground of expiry of lease.
11. Under section 15 of the Act, the expiry of lease agreement is in itself a ground for eviction of tenant, the plea of the petitioner of verbal extension of tenancy for unlimited period could not possibly be given any credence and was rightly repelled. By treating the ejectment petition as notice in the circumstances, as permissible in law, the Special Judge (Rent) as well as the Appellate Court rightly allowed the ejectment of the petitioner on the ground of expiry of lease. The impugned orders as such do not suf fer from any error of law nor call for any interference.
12. Resultantly , the Constitutional petition being devoid of any substance is dismissed . The petitioner is allowed 30-days from the date of this Judgment to deliver the vacant possession of the premises to respondent No.2/Zainabia Trust.