IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KARACHI

Date of hearing            0 5.  1 0.  2 0 0 6  .

Date of Judgment     0 9.  1 0 .  2 0 0 6 .

Petitioners:                      Ali Auto Store through Mr. Syed Mohammad Akbar, Advocate.

Respondents:                      Nemo for respondents

O   R   D   E   R

MUNIB AHMED KHAN. J,    This Petition has been filed by the tenant against the Judgement of learned V Additional District Judge South Karachi dated 18.10.2005 in FRA Nos.333 of 2002 (filed by the tenant) by which judgment the learned V Additional District Judge has dismissed the appeal and has upheld the findings of the learned Rent Controller dated 26.08.2002, whereby it has fixed fair rent of the premises at Rs.2,000/- per month including the taxes w.e.f. institution of application i.e. 28.05.1995.

The brief facts the case are that respondent is owner of premises i.e. Shop No.96, measuring 96 sq ft situated on the ground floor of the building known as Alnoor Chambers on Plot No. PR-2/3/2, Preedy Street, Saddar, Karachi, and the appellant is the tenant at the rate of Rs.624/- p.m. An application was filed before Rent Controller under section 8 Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979 on the ground that the rent was very low while in the similar type of premises rent at the rate of Rs.90/- per sq ft is charged. The landlord has also submitted that all the elements mentioned in section 8 are applicable and costs of construction, repair taxes has been increased many time, while the rent has not been increased. The respondent in reply submitted that building is very old and that the shops in adjacent building in similar condition are paying less than the respondent is paying and that the tenancy is very old. He further submits that landlord is not spending anything towards maintenance while tenant has incurred all those expenses and since building is very old it has been included in the list of building, notified by the government as Heritage Versa. The learned Rent Controller framed issues as follows:

Whether the present rate of rent of the demised premises is not just and fair, if so, what should the fair rent be?

       After taking into consideration the evidence of the parties as well as keeping in mind the requirement of section 8, learned Rent Controller enhanced the rent to Rs.2,000/- per month, including taxes. The matter was taken up in appeal where learned Additional District Judge adopted the same issues, as framed, by Rent Controller for hearing and determination and dismissed, the appeal. Now learned counsel has argued that the tenancy is very old and both the lower courts failed by not taking into consideration that the landlord is not incurring any expenses over the building and that ingredient of section 8 of Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979 were not available nor there was any evidence to support the contentions of the landlord. He has further submitted that the judgment of both the lower court is based on presumption, therefore, both the orders may be set aside.

After hearing the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner and perusal of record I find that Rent Controller has discussed the evidence, brought in the shape of challan of property tax, bill of KWSB, Certificate of Architect and order passed in other rent cases etc. alongwith other material brought on record and after elaborate discussion and looking into the authorities referred to by the learned counsel for the parties, he reached to a decision and has fixed the rent at Rs.2,000/- per month including the tax. The documents in respect to the taxes cannot be rebutted and contention of learned counsel that in the absence of repair or maintenance section 8 of Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979 will not apply is incorrect, as section 8 has provided certain points for determination to be looked into and it is not necessary that actually any repair or maintenance has been carried out in respect to the premises. Section 8 provides only criteria to be seen in general, for the purpose of comparison of rent viz a viz ratio of increase in taxes as well as costs of construction. This ratio is necessary for determining the fair rent to be paid by the tenant by any increase in existing rent. It cannot be a ground that since the tenant is old tenant, therefore, he will pay less nor it is necessary that all the grounds mentioned in section 8 of Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979 must be present. Learned V Additional District Judge  has also assessed the order of the Rent Controller and has rightly not interfered in the said judgment. Before this court, learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any illegality or even irregularity or any other act which justify indulgence of this court in writ jurisdiction to interfere in the concurrent findings reached by both the courts below. In the circumstances, there is no force in the Petition which is accordingly dismissed in limine.

J U D G E

Samie