' NASIR ASLAM ZAHID, J.---Petitioner company (tenant) has filed this petition seeking leave against the impugned judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court dated 11-7-1996 allowing writ petition filed by respondent No,5. We heave herd the arguments of Mr. Tallat Farooq Sheikh, learned Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioners and Ch. Muhammad Saleem, learned Advocate Supreme Court for respondent No,5 appearing on caveat. With the assistance of the learned counsel, we have gone through the relevant record.
2. Respondent No,5 Amjad Arif, owner of a house in Gulberg, Lahore, had rented out the same to the petitioners through their Director Asad Shujah Siddiqui (respondent No,2) in 1981. In 1990, the landlord filed an ejectment application against the petitioners and respondent No,6 on the grounds of personal need, default in the payment of rent and subletting. The ejectment application was resisted by the petitioners through respondent No,2. Evidence of both the parties was recorded and respondent No,2 appeared as the last witness on behalf of the petitioners as R.W,9. As a matter of fact, the rent agreement on behalf of the petitioners was signed by respondent No,2; Written Statement on behalf of the petitioners was signed by him and he had also engaged the advocate for representing the petitioners before the Rent Controller and he was all along defending the ejectment proceedings. After the evidence was over on 5-12-1993, the case was adjourned to 8-12- 1993 for final arguments, but, on this day, it was informed that a compromise had been effected between the parties according to which, petitioners were to pay rent at the rate of Rs,9,000 per month and to remain in possession till 30-6-1996. The Rent Controller recorded statements of the parties and their counsel and accepted the ejectment application in terms of the compromise by order dated 9-12-1993.
' This order was, however, challenged by the petitioners in appeal on the ground that respondent No,2, Asad Shujah Siddiqui (Director of the petitioners) was not competent to enter into compromise on behalf of the petitioners and that in fact there was no compromise and respondent No,2 had colluded with the landlord. Reliance was also placed on a resolution of the petitioner company dated 1-1-1994 (after the compromise) according to which respondent No,2 had been removed from directorship by the Company for the alleged misconduct. The appellate Court (the Additional Sessions Judge) accepted the appeal by order dated 31-1-1995 and remanded the case to the Rent Controller with the direction to hold an inquiry about the competency of respondent No,2 and the petitioners" advocate to make a consenting statement on behalf of the petitioners. Being aggrieved, the landlord filed a writ petition before the Lahore High Court which has been allowed by the impugned order dated 11-7-1996.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has repeated the arguments which were advanced on behalf of the petitioners in the writ petition filed by the landlord. The main argument was that respondent No,2, though a Director of the Company, had not been authorised and had no power to enter into a compromise. The learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court has considered and dealt with this contention in great detail and rejected the same giving cogent reasons. The High Court noted that the agreement of lease dated 10-2-1981 had been signed on behalf of the petitioners by respondent No,2, who also represented the petitioners throughout the ejectment proceedings.
Vakalat Nama of the advocate was signed by respondent No,2 on behalf of the petitioners' written reply of the petitioners was also signed by respondent No,2; he continued to defend the ejectment proceedings throughout and appeared as witness on behalf of the petitioners. It was then observed by the High Court that it is clear from the record that Asad Shujah represented the petitioners throughout the proceedings and that he was competent to represent the petitioners and there was nothing on record to show that the authority exercised by respondent No,2 on behalf of the petitioners was revoked any stage during the proceedings before the Rent Controller. The High Court further noted that the petitioners had been directed by the Rent Controller by order dated 5-10-1995 to deposit the arrears of rent as well as a future rent under the Rent Restriction Ordinance and the petitioners were depositing rent pursuant to the said orders and this fact further proved that the entire proceedings were in the knowledge of the petitioners and it had allowed respondent No,2 to represent them and to contest the proceedings. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the High Court rightly referred to the "doctrine of in-door management' by holding that the petitioners could not challenge the authority of respondent No,2 making aforesaid consenting statement. After perusing the record and hearing learned counsel, we are of the view that there is no error in the impugned judgment of the High Court calling for interference.
' This petition for leave is accordingly dismissed and leave is refused.