ALI MUHAMMAD BALOCH, J.- On 15.10.1995 Mr. KA. Wahab, Advocate for the appellant and Mr. Nazar Khan, Advocate and Administrator of the respondent were heard and by a short order the F.R.A. No. 72/94 was dismissed in limine for the reasons to be recorded. These are the reasons for the same.
2. M/s. Karimji Ebrahimji & Sons, the landlord of Plot No. W.O.6/25, MA Jinnah Road, Karachi, had filed an application under section 15 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 against their tenant M/s. Taj Company Ltd. For getting vacant possession of a shop on the ground floor of the above described building, which was being occupied by M/s. Taj Company Ltd. On monthly rent of Rs.
6000/-. The only ground for getting possession, taken in the application was default in payment of the rent by the tenant Taj Company Ltd. From the months of June, 1991 upto August, 1992, which was the month when the rent application was filed. Apart from taking other defence pleas before the Rent Controller, the tenant M/s. Taj Company Ltd. Through their administrator Mr. Muhammad Naazar Khan, Advocate, who represents the Company in all the litigations took the stand that since the proceedings in the affairs of Taj Company Ltd. Were pending in the Lahore High Court as Civil Original No. 45/90 under provisions of Section 290 of the Companies Ordinance and that the Lahore High Court had appointed a Board of Administrators in place of the Board of Directors of the Company, no suit or other legal proceedings could commence or proceed against M/s. Taj Company Ltd. Except by leave of the Lahore High Court as provided under section 316 of the Companies Ordinance. Such application was moved before the Rent Controller and the learned Rent Controller, after hearing the parties on this application, passed an order dated 11.11.1993 allowing this application. The result was that the proceedings under section 15 before the Rent Controller came to a stand still and the landlord was required to seek the leave of the Lahore High Court to proceed further in the matter.
3. The landlord feeling that this was an order finally passed under provisions of Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, challenged ii by way of present appeal. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the order of the Rent Controller requiring the appellant to obtain leave of Lahore High Court under provisions of Section 316 of the Companies Ordinance was illegal inasmuch as there were no proceedings under section 316 before the Lahore High Court as only proceedings under section 290 of the Companies Ordinance were pending before the Lahore High Court under which there is no bar to proceed with any case against M/s. Taj Company Ltd. Learned counsel for the appellant also pleaded that since no winding up proceedings had taken place before the Lahore High Court and merely appointing Board of the Administrators will not debar the Rent Controller to proceed with the rent application against the applicant without the leave of the Lahore High Court. Learned counsel for the respondent, however, stated that all legal proceedings against M/s. Taj Company Ltd. Were being stayed by the Courts and that they have observed that leave of the Lahore High Court was necessary and that even when proceedings under section 290 were in hand, the appointment of the Provisional Manager/Board of Administrators denoted that all proceedings against Taj Company have intake place with the leave of the Lahore High Court. The second contention of the learned counsel for the respondent was that since no final/appealable order has been passed by the Rent Controller, this could not be treated as an appeal under section 21 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 and at the most the impugned order amounts to an interim order in the rent proceedings against which no appeal lies.
4. After giving due consideration to the arguments of the learned counsel I find that the contents of Section 316 of the Companies Ordinance provide that when a Provisional Manager has been appointed, no suit or other legal proceedings shall be proceeded with or commenced against the Company except by leave of the Court. Although the wording in the Section requires the appointment of "a Provisional Manager", Mr. Muhammad Nazir Khan is appointed as an administrator, (being a member of the Board of Administrators). The appointment of the Board of Administrators had been held to be equivalent to the appointment of a Provisional Manager in case of M/s. Taj Company Ltd. In the case of National Bank of Pakistan v. Banking Tribunal No. 1 & 11 others reported in P.L.D. 1994 Karachi
358. In the reported case an identical question has been resolved and it had been held that no prejudice is caused to the appellant as only a procedural formality has been ordered to be complied with viz. To obtain the leave of the Lahore High Court before proceeding further. In the reported case the Section 316 has been interpreted and it has been held that appointment of administrator by the Lahore High Court is equivalent to appointment of a Provisional Manager under provisions of section 316 of the Companies Ordinance. As such, I do not find anything wrong with the order passed by the Rent Controller, which has been challenged by way of this appeal.
Since on this one point alone, I do not find this F.R.A, worth admission for hearing, the other points need not be discussed. The result is F.R.A. No. 72/94 is dismissed in limine.