1. ARSHAD NOOR KHAN, J.- The petitioner, by his Constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, has challenged the vires of the judgment dated 24.10.2005, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Karachi-South in First Rent Appeal No. 1274/200T, whereby the appeal, filed by the respondent No. 1, was allowed and the order dated 04.05.1999, passed by the learned VIIth Rent Controller, Karachi-South in Rent Case No. 987/1992 (The State vs. Muhammad Ashfaq) was modified.
2. The facts leading rise to the present petition in brief are that the respondent filed application under Section 18 of Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, hereinafter shall be referred to as the "Ordinance, 1979" stating therein that the petitioner is their tenant in respect of cabin admeasuring 36 square feet, located on the land bearing Survey No. SB; 6/8. Saddar Bazaar, Karachi, popularly known as 'State Life Building No. 5-B, Zaib-un-Nisa Street, Saddar, Karachi, at a monthly rent of Rs.
3. 300/- per month. It is further stated in the application that the said premises is situated in the heart of commercial area of the city and the rate of rent of similar premises in the commercial area of Zaib-un-Nisa Street fetched .The rent at the rate of KW&SB have also imposed and enhanced the taxes over the premises in question, as such the respondents prayed for fixation of fair rent at the rate of Rs. 50/- per square foot.
4. The petitioner was served with the notice of the aforesaid application, who filed written statement, denied, inter alia, therein the enhancement of taxes by the KMC and KW&SB and that the similar property in the vicinity could not fetch the rent at the rate of Rs. 50/- per square foot, as such he prayed for dismissal of the application for fixation of fair rent.
5. The parties led their evidence pro and contra to their respective claims and the learned Rent Controller after analysis of the evidence brought on record allowed the rent application arid enhanced to rent at the rate of 10%. The respondent No. 1, being aggrieved against the order passed by the learned Rent Controller, filed appeal which was heard and allowed by the learned Rent Controller, filed appeal which was heard and allowed by the learned Additional District Judge, Karachi-South and fixed the fair rent at the rate of Rs. 40/- per square foot with effect from 08.07.1992, hence the present petition.
6. I have heard Mr. Muhammad Ashraf Khan Mughal, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. Zahid Hussain, learned counsel for respondent No. 1.
7. Mr. Muhammad Ashraf Khan Mughal, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the order passed by the learned Appellate authority was illegal, inoperative and against the law as no sufficient reasons have been assigned by the learned appellate authority while fixing the rate of the rent at the rate of 40/- per square foot. According to him,' the learned lower Court has also not considered the conditions specified in Section 18 of the Ordinance, 1979, as such the order passed by the learned appellate authority is bad in law and is liable to be reversed. In support of his contention he has relied upon the case of Utility Stores Corporation of Pakistan Ltd. Vs. Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal & others, reported in PLD 1987 SC 477 and the case of Mian Fazal Elahi vs. Additional District Judge & another, Reported in PLD 1988 Lahore 239.
8. Mr. Zahid Hussain, learned counsel for respondent No. 1, has vehemently controverted the contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and has contended that the order passed by the learned appellate authority did not suffer from any illegality or misreading of evidence available on record nor the said order is in excess of jurisdiction of the learned appellate authority and no illegality or infirmity has been pointed out in the order impugned by the petitioner as such no case for interference has been made out.
9. I have considered the. Arguments advanced on behalf of the parties and have gone through the evidence available on-record.
10. At the outset it may be observed that both the learned Courts have arrived at a conclusion that the rent is. Liable to be enhanced and in fact the prayer of the respondent No. 1 contained in his application was acceded by the learned Rent Controller, who enhanced the rent at the rate of 10% over the monthly rent and the Appellate Court enhanced the rent at the rate of Rs. 40/- per square foot There is, therefore, concurrent findings of the learned lower Court regarding low rent of the premises in question paid by the petitioner. The learned Appellate Court has considered the whole evidence available on record while allowing the appeal and fixing the rent at the rate of Rs. 40/- per square foot and that finding of the learned appellate authority is in accordance with the conditions laid down under Section 8 of the Ordinance, 1979. Section 8 of the Ordinance, 1979 provides four conditions and it is not necessary that all the four conditions must be satisfied or fulfilled by the. Landlord while praying for fixation of rent of the demised premises and any one condition specified in Section 8, ibid, is sufficient to fix the fair rent of the demised premises. In the present case the learned Appellate Court has taken into consideration the evidence that the property similar to the property in dispute could fetch Rs. 40/- per square foot, as such the learned appellate authority has considered all the relevant aspects of the case before fixation of the fair rent and no illegality or misreading of evidence has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the order passed by the learned Appellate Court.
11. The finding of both the learned lower Courts regarding fixation of rent is admittedly a finding which is arrived at after considering the whole evidence available on record and the finding of fact concurrently arrived at by the Courts below could not be disturbed in Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court.
12. The case-law relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner in my humble opinion are distinguishable from the circumstances of the present case and are inapplicable.
13. For the foregoing reasons I do not find that the order passed by the learned lower Court suffers from any illegality, irregularity, misreading of evidence of non-reading of evidence so as to interfere in the writ jurisdiction of this Court. The petition has, therefore, no merit and is hereby dismissed summarily.