1. ' The appellant filed an application for ejectment against the respondent in respect of a portion of a go down in the rear part of the State Bank of Pakistan Building, I.I. Chandigarh Road, Karachi, of which the respondent is a tenant at Rs,600, p.m. before filing this ejectment application, the appellant served a notice dated 3-2-1973 calling upon the respondent to vacate the premises as it was required for its bona fide personal use. The respondent filed written statement resisting the claim. He pleaded that the appellant has sufficient space to accommo date itself and its requirement is neither bona fide, nor in good faith. It was also pleaded that the application was not properly verified, nor there was any proper resolution of the board of directors for filing such action.
2. The learned Controller granted the ejectment application holding that the premises is bona fide required by the appellant. In 1st Appeal the learned 1st Appellate Court set aside the order and dismissed the ejectment application.
3. ' Mr.Abdul Majeed Khan the learned counsel for the appellant has pointed out that so far the maintainability of the application is concerned, both the Courts below have held in favour of the appellant. However, Mr. Virjee has challenged the finding of the both the Courts below on the ground that the appellant being a corporate body and there being no resolution for the purpose of filing the ejectment application the same could not be instituted. In this regard the appellant has produced a document Exh.11 where the Executive Directors have given permission and sanction for filing ejectment case and appointment of the Advocate. The ejectment application has been signed by an Accounts Officer and according to Mr. Abdul Majeed Khan in view of the provision of the State Bank of Pakistan Act and the Regulations the Accounts Officer has been authorized to sign the plaint, written statement and affidavit. Mr. Virjee the learned counsel for the respondent has pointed out that such authority under the Regulation can be limited only for business purposes which have been specified in Regulation 35. Regulation 35 provides that the persons mentioned therein and such other Officers of the State Bank of Pakistan as are authorized by the Central Board by notification are empowered to transact the business specified in the Regulation and sign the documents. Regulation 36 provides that the plaint, written statement, affidavits and other documents connected with the legal proceedings may be signed and verified on behalf of the Bank by persons specified in Regulation 35. It has, therefore, to be examined whether the Accounts Officer who has signed the ejectment application was an authorized Officer under Regulation 35.
4. By a Gazette notification, dated 27-8-1948 (Exh.6) all the Managers and Accountants were notified as officers empower to transact business and sign documents specified in Regulation 35 The appellant had also produced Gazette notification Exh.7 whereby the designation of the Accountant was changed to Accounts Officer/Staff Officer. It is thus clear that Accounts Officer is a person authorised to perform duties and transact business as specified in Regulation 35 and consequently can sign and verify plaint, written statement, affidavit and other documents connected with legal proceedings. The intention of Regulations 35 and 36 is not to restrict the authority under Regulation 36 to the legal proceedings relating to the business and duties specified in regulation 35. The correct import is that any authorized person under Regulation 35 is empowered under Regulation 36 to sign and verify plaint, written statement affidavit and other documents connected with the legal proceedings. The learned counsel has also relied on PLD 1971 SC 550 but it is not applicable to the facts of the case. It has been established that Ziauddin, the person who has signed the application and has given evidence was authorized under Regulation 36 to sign plaints and other documents on behalf of the appellant. It therefore, seems that he had the authority to deal with matters under litigation. Additionally a mere omission to sign the ejectment application or if it is signed by an unauthorized person, will not make it incompetent. In this regard reliance can be placed on PLD 1972 Quetta 5.
5. ' Coming to the main contention of the parties regarding bona fide requirement of the appellant, the same has been set out in the ejectment application. The appellant requires the premises for the expansion of its office. The same facts have been stated by both the witnesses and on this aspect sufficient cross-examination has been made in which the position relating to bona fide requirement has been clarified.
6. ' It is correct that the evidence regarding bona fide requirement is stated by the appellant's witness in their examination-in-chief is very short and full details have not been given, but if the statement is read along with the cross-examination, the gaps have been filled in and full detail of such requirement has been given. The witness has also stated about the existing space in occupation of the appellant, the purpose for which it is required and also that there are no other proper places for use by the appellant. On the other hand the main thrust of the respondent's cross-examination and the defence was that the appellant is in possession of sufficient accommodation and therefore, it can satisfy its need from the existing space available with it. Although such statement has been made by the respondent also, at no stage he has given particulars of such building and accommodation which are lying vacant and are available with the appellant. The rule regarding proof of bona fide requirement has been laid down in PLD 1976 Kar. 832 which was confirmed in 1980 SCMR 593. It was held that where, the averment in the application and the statement of the landlord are consistent and it has not been shaken or rebutted in cross-examination then even if there is some deficiency in the evidence, the landlord shall be deemed to have proved his bona fide requirement. Another rule is that the burden to establish that the landlord has sufficient space available and lacks bona fides is always on the tenant. In this regard the tenant has to establish facts giving full particulars to show that the landlord has sufficient accommodation, and hardly requires the disputed premises. The respondent has failed to meet the requirement of law.
7. ' Mr.Virjee the learned counsel for the respondent has referred to PLD 1984 Kar. 141 wherein landlord had not disclosed in his ejectment application that he also owned another flat in the same urban area nor established in evidence that such other flat was neither occupied nor was suitable for his own accommodation, the application for ejectment was dismissed. The rule laid down in this authority cannot be made applicable to the present case as the respondent has failed to establish that there is sufficient accommodation available with the appellant from which it can satisfy its need. The same rule has also been laid down in 1982 SCMR 1132; 1984 CLC 645; 1984 CLC 521; 1984 CLC 265 referred by the learned counsel for the respondent. In the absence of any conclusive evidence that the appellant is in possession of vast building and accommodation which are lying vacant, the principle enunciated in these authorities are not at all applicable.
8. ' Mr.Abdul Majeed Khan the learned counsel for the appellant has referred to section 20 of the State Bank of Pakistan Act to show that the appellant cannot own a property for the purposes of letting it out.
9. ' It can only own a property for its own requirement or for the residence and recreation of the welfare of its employees. Although in the application no such fact has been stated nor it is the intention of Mr. Abdul Majeed Khan to press this point as an additional ground for ejectment application, it can be referred to show the appellant's bona fide.
10. Mr.R.F.Virjee then contended that the respondent is in occupation of a garage in the rear portion of the building and it is not suitable for opening or maintaining any office by the appellant. This can hardly be a ground to reject the application or doubt the bona fides of the appellant. If the respondent can run his office there and carry on the business why not the appellant. Moreover it is not for the tenant to tell the landlord in what manner he should arrange his affairs, ' The 1st learned Appellate Court as contended by Mr. Abdul Majeed Khan has misread the evidence. The case of the appellant from the very begin no has been that it wants the premises for expansion of its office. The learned 1st Appellate Court treated this demand as expansion by making additional construction. This was never the case of the appellant and the learned Appellate Court has completely misread the evidence on record.
11. ' In the result the appeal is allowed. The respondent is allowed four months time to vacate the premises.