1. ' The applicant, a leasing company, had leased on the request of the respondent-company (under liquidation) a car Model 1993 with Registration No,AAA-478 for a period of 336 months on payment of monthly rent of Rs,27,600. The period of lease has expired but two instalments of rental remained due with the respondent-company went into liquidation.
2. ' The applicant, on the basis of agreement, has approached for the release of the vehicle. Case of the applicant is based under Article 23 of the Agreement, which requires that on expiration or earlier termination of the lease agreement, the lessee shall deliver/surrender up the equipment to the lessor.
3. ' Article 23 reads as under:- "Upon the expiration or earlier termination of this, lease agreement for any reason whatsoever the lessee shall deliver and surrender up the equipment to the lessor at the address of the lessor stated in this lease agreement or at such other address as the lessor may specify, or if so required by the lessor shall hold the equipment available for collection by the lessor or its agent without notice re-take possession of the equipment and may for that purpose enter upon any land or buildings on or in which the equipment is or is believed by the lessor or its agents to be situated and if the equipment or any part thereof is affixed so much land or buildings the lessor shall be entitled to sever the same therefrom and to remove the equipment or part thereof severed and the lessee shall be responsible for all damages caused to land or buildings by such removal."
4. ' I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant and have considered the reply submitted by 0/A. Admittedly, the car is in possession of 0/A and two instalments of rental are still due. Learned counsel for the applicant has brought to my notice the judgment dated 29-4-1999 of a Division Bench of this Court in 1st Appeal No,44 of 1998, wherein similar situation was considered and in para.8 of the judgment the following observation was made:-- "Nevertheless upon careful consideration of the same in the relevant context it appears quite plain that the learned Banking Court could not confer title or ownership of the aforesaid assets when the agreement between the parties in unmistakable terms stipulates in terms of Article 7 that title, ownership and right of the property shall at all times remain vested in , the Modaraba and Article 8 provides that at the end of the lease terms the leased property would be returned by the lessee in good operating condition and working order. It may also be mentioned that the aforesaid agreement does not even bind the Modaraba to enter into an agreement for sale of the leased property to the lessee."
5. ' The observation referred to above is fully attracted to the case of the applicant who definitely is the owner of the property. The period of lease has expired and the lessee was required to hand over such property viz. Car to the lessor. I am, therefore, of the view that the applicant as owner is entitled for return of the vehicle. Consequently 0/A is directed to hand over the vehicle referred to above to the applicant.