Find a Lawyer

First Rent Appeal No.310 of 1983, decided on 21st August, 1986.

---Ss.13(3)(a)(ii) & 15--Banking Companies Ordinance (LVII of 1962), S.28--Ejectment on ground of bona fide requirement of landlord--Plea of landlord (National Bank) that the premises were required to accommodate new Zonal Office proposed to be opened--Landlord already managing two Zonal Offices and no evidence produced to prove that existing accommodation for Zonal Offices was not sufficient to accommodate newly created Zonal Office--Permission of State Bank under S.28, Banking Companies Ordinance, 1962 for opening such a Zonal Office also not obtained--Claim of landlord, held, neither legal nor bona fide.

Mr. Haideri for Petitioner.

Qadir Hussain Sayeed for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 21st August, 1986.

The appellant filed an application for ejectment under Section 13(3)(a)(ii) of West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 for ejectment of the respondent from premises bearing No. G-3, 6/16, V A-167, situated at Zaibunnissa Street, Saddar, Karachi. The only ground for seeking ejectment was that the premises is required in good faith for appellant's bona fide use for establishment of its 'Zonal Office Zone 'C' Commercial'. It was pleaded that the appellant was not occupying any other premises suitable for its need in the area in which the said premises is situated nor the appellant has vacated any other building in the same area. The respondent denied the claim of the appellant. It was pleaded that first notice dated 24-6-1975 was served on the respondent calling upon it to vacate as the appellant required the disputed premises for opening a branch. However, by a subsequent notice dated 6-7-1976 it was alleged that the said premises was required for opening its Zonal Office. According to the respondent, the claim of the appellant is not bona fide. The learned Controller on the basis of evidence produced by the parties, by the impugned order, dismissed the application.

Mr. Haideri the learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the appellant had established its bona fide requirement for opening Zonal Office 'C', therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. The main claim of the appellant is that it wants to open a Zonal Office Zone 'C' Commercial in the disputed premises. The appellant has examined its Senior Vice-President who has stressed the need for opening a Zonal Office as in Saddar area there are 22 branches of the bank. In this regard he has produced a note dated 9-2-1978 in which it has been stated that presently about 130 branches are controlled by two Zones A and B which have made bank's supervision difficult and by opening Zonal Office 'C' branches will be reorganized and controlled properly. Besides this document no other document has been produced by the appellant to establish its case. The authenticity of this document has to be considered first. It seems that from the year 1974 the appellant wanted this premises for its own business purposes. This is established from notice dated 14-11-1974 (Ex.D/16) and notice dated 24-6-1975 Ex.(D-17). By these two notices the appellant had required the premises for opening their branch in respect of which licence had been granted by the State Bank of Pakistan. It has been admitted that this branch has been opened in another premises at Zaibunnissa Street. However, the appellant is now seeking ejectment on the ground that the premises is required for opening a Zonal Office for Zone 'C' which was to be created. In this regard the appellant's evidence is very scanty and fragmentary. The learned Controller has considered these facts and pointed out that the resolution of the Board of Directors of the Bank has not been produced to show that such a decision was taken in this regard. The 'office note dated 9-2-1978' which was prepared after filing of the ejectment case does not reflect the decision of the Bank on a date prior to filing ejectment application or even after that. It seems that this note was prepared to feed the case which was filed by the appellant and is more or less in the nature of suggestion. There would be many other documents relating to establish nest of Zone 'C' because it is a policy matter which is to be decided by the Bank and merely an office note by Controller of Operations and initialled by the Executive Vice-President cannot be sufficient to establish that the Bank had decided to open a Zonal Office.

Even if for argument sake it is accepted that the appellant has decided to open a Zonal Office the question arises whether the accommodation available with the bank is not sufficient for this purpose. There is no evidence to show what accommodation is available at various places in appellant's possession. The appellant is managing the alleged Zone 'C' area through its Zonal Offices A and B and it has not been proved that the existing accommodation for Zonal Offices is not sufficient to accommodate a newly created Zonal Office which it proposes to open. In my view the appellant has failed to establish with cogent and convincing evidence that the premises is bona fide required for its personal use.

Mr. Qadir Sayeed the learned counsel for the respondent has contended that the appellant is required to obtain permission under Section 28 of the Banking Companies Ordinance 1962 which admittedly has not been obtained by it. On the other hand Mr. Haideri has contended that opening of Zonal Office does not amount to opening a 'place of business' and therefore no permission is required. Looking to the scheme of Banking Companies Ordinance 1962 it seems that State Bank of Pakistan has to have control over the banks including their branches, offices or places of business which may be opened from place to place. For this reason section 28 provides and lays down restriction on opening a new place of business. The words 'place of business' have been explained which 'include any sub-office, office and any place of business at which deposits are received, cheques are cashed and moneys are paid'. This definition gives wide meaning as it is inclusive in nature. Except a general statement in the office note the appellant has not explained the nature of work to be carried out in that office. If the work is to control the working and business of the branches located in Zone 'C' then the Zonal office will be looking after and supervising the dealings, transactions and business of those branches. In that event the Zonal Office will not be restricted merely to the administrative matters but will be carrying out banking business as well. In these circumstances for opening such a Zonal Office permission of the State Bank of Pakistan under section 28 was necessary. It was the duty of the appellant to have produced witness to explain the object and nature of the Zonal office and how activities in this office will not make it a place of business. The claim of the appellant is therefore, neither legal nor bona fide. The appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.

S.Q./N-24/K Appeal dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.