MUNIB AHMAD KHAN, J.---This petition has been filed against the judgment, dated 31-5-2008, passed by the learned IIIrd Additional District and Sessions Judge, Karachi (West) in F.R.A. Nos.32 of 2007 and 6 of 2007, wherein, by a common judgment, dated 22-3-2007, the appeal of the petitioner/tenant has been dismissed while the appeal of respondent No,1/landlord has been allowed. Learned Additional District Judge has increased the rent of the premises from Rs,12 per sq.
Ft. Per month to Rs,17 per square ft. Per month from the date of the application with 10% per annum increase.
2. The facts which came on record show that the respondent No,1 approached the Rent Controller through a rent application under section 8 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, with a prayer that the fair rent of the property be determined at the rate of Rs,20 per sq. Ft per month from the date of application with 10% annual increase. In that application, it has been stated that they are landlords of warehouse constructed on KPT Plot Nos. 10 and 11, "C" Group Warehouse Area, opposite M.T. Khan Road, Karachi while the petitioners are the tenants of a warehouse with floor area of 4200 sq. Ft for last 29 years and have been paying monthly rent at the rate of Rs,1.25 per sq.
Ft. Per month with no increase in the past and that in 1999, KPT increased lease ground rent charges from Rs,67.55 per sq. Ft. Per annum to Rs,321.60 sq. Ft. Per annum with an annual increase of 7% per annum. The KPT also levied additional municipal tax calculated at 37.5% in addition to ground rent, hence the respondent No,1 in September, 1999 asked the petitioner to increase the monthly rent from Rs,1.25 per sq. Ft. To Rs,15 per sq. Ft. And that the gross annual rented value of the entire premises having a floor area of 18380 sq. Ft. Was assessed by the Excise and Taxation Department at Rs,55,740, on which the landlord was paying tax of Rs,18,360 while in the year, 2000, the property has been re-assessed and gross annual rental value has been fixed Rs,983,250 and tax has been demanded at Rs,159,286 per annum. It has been averred in the application that on the same ground floor adjacent similar property bearing Nos.8 and 9-C is rented out at Rs,15 per sq. Ft. Per month with 10% annual increase. It has been contended in the application that there has been enormous increase in the cost of construction, repair and maintenance, renovation and unkeep of urban properties.
3. The matter has been contested by the tenant, where, it has been denied that adjacent similar property has been rented out for Rs,15 per sq. Ft. Per month while it has also been stated that the rent prevailing for the similar premises in the similar circumstances in the adjoining locality is not more than Rs,5 per sq. Ft. Per month and that too when the property has improved at the cost of the landlord. It has further been contended that no intimation was given in respect to the assessm ent of tax.
4. Evidence of the parties was recorded. Besides the applicant's witnesses, person from TCS office was examined. In rebuttal petitioner examined his witness and also called a witness from Excise and Taxation Department. Learned Rent Controller after hearing the parties determined the rent of the premises at the rate of Rs,12 per sq. Ft. Per month from the date of the application with 10% increase per annum. Both the landlord and tenant filed appeals before the learned Additional District Judge, who dismissed the appeal of the petitioner/tenant while allowed the appeal of the landlord/respondent No,1 and further increased the rent from Rs,12 per sq. Ft. Per month to Rs,17 per sq. Ft. Per month from the date of the rent application with 10% increase per annum.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Rent Controller has wrongly placed his reliance upon the evidence of witness from the TCS which itself is a tenant of the respondent No,1 and that the evidence of the official of Excise and Taxation Department was not justifying the increase up to Rs,12 per sq. Ft. Per month. He submits that the petitioner was paying Rs,125 per sq. Ft.
Per month and by increasing same to Rs,12 per sq. Ft. Per month, the Rent Controller has increased up to 1000% from the existing rent and that both the Courts below have exceeded their jurisdiction by ordering 10% increase and that there was no sufficient material before either of the Court to increase the rent enormously while prevalent rent in the market is not more than Rs,5 per sq. Ft per month and that the evidence of the TCS officials cannot be relied upon as TCS was the tenant of the respondent No, t while there was no independent evidence. He has further argued that the learned Additional District Judge has even considered increase in labour charges while increasing rent from Rs,12 per sq. Ft. To Rs,17 per sq. Ft. Per month notwithstanding the fact that the labour charges factor is not given in section 8 of the SRPO, 1979 and that both the Courts below have failed to consider that the petitioner was an old tenant with only a boundary wall for godown with no electricity or water while another tenant i,e, TCS has constructed room and the godown with other amenities. He further argued that in the light of the evidence submitted so far there is no justification with either of the Court below to increase the rent from Rs,1.25 to Rs,12 or to Rs,17 as no evidence has been brought from the vicinity.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No,1 submitted that the entire plot is 3470 sq. Yds. Allotted by the KPT only for godown purposes and the petitioner is in possession of 4200 sq.
Ft. With Plot No,10, 11-C, Group Warehouse Area, Opposite M.T. Khan Road, Karachi and that the said plot has been given for godown purposes only with provided construction as on the upper floors godown has also been constructed. He has submitted that electricity and water was available with the tenant but it has been disconnected due to non-payment of utility bills. He further submits that on the same ground an area of 7000 sq. Ft. Has been given to the TCS Organization at the rate of Rs,15 per sq. Ft. Per month with 10% annual increase and the TCS lastly was paying Rs,26 per sq. Ft.
Per month while the area with the TCS and the petitioner is adjacent to each other and is placed in the similar circumstances and is more closer in the same vicinity. He submits that KPT itself has increased its charges to the extent of 500% with annual increase of 7% in 1999 and that the official from the Excise and Taxation Department was called by the Rent Controller at the request of the petitioner and the said witness submitted detail of increase in the taxes while the TCS official was called by the respondent No,1 and the said witness submitted his rent agreement showing thereby that Rs,15 per sq. Ft. Was paid in 1999. Learned counsel further submits that the Rent Controller has considered the factors available for increase of rent as mentioned in section 8 of the SRPO, 1979. He has relied upon 2000 SCM R 1242, PLD 2005 Kar. 554, 2001 SCM R 671 and 2001 SCM R 1103.
7. After hearing the arguments of the learned counsel, it has been observed that the demand of increase to the extent of Rs,20 per sq. Ft. Has been resisted by the petitioner but in the cross- examination, the witness of the petitioner has admitted that they offered Rs,8 per sq. Ft. Per month to the respondent No,1 towards the rent. This admission negates the contention of the petitioner that the rent in the vicinity is Rs,5 per sq. Ft. Per month. There is no evidence from the side of the petitioner to show that any building of the vicinity has been paying lesser rent up to Rs,5 per sq. Ft.
Per month. The only witness which has been called at the request of the petitioner is Mukhtar Lashari, an official from the Excise and Taxation Department, who has stated that annual letting value was Rs,55.740 but after new assessment, the assessment value is Rs,983,250 while tax has been increased accordingly. The evidence which has been brought on record by the respondent No,1 is his witness, who stated that no increase has been made since long while adjacent tenant is paying Rs,15 per sq. Ft. Per month and to prove that Muhammad Sohail, Manager Administration of TCS appeared and submitted a tenancy agreement. From the record, it appears that increase in respect to the taxation as well as rent in the vicinity has been brought on record. The tenant adjacent to the property in question is more relevant than the tenant in the vicinity as, in the instant case, both the tenants are under one roof and utilizing the premises for god own purposes while there may be a room for office/administrative purpose with either of them. Evidence has been brought that the Excise and Taxation Department has increased rented value to the extent of 400% while the KPT has also increased its rent, which has not been rebutted by the petitioner. Both these increases can be considered towards the factors entitling the Court to increase the rent. It has been noted that although the appellate Court has mentioned labour charges as one of the factors, which is not specifically mentioned in section 8 of the SRPO, 1979 but it is a factor of general knowledge that the cost of construction has been increased by manifold and its increase also be considered while deciding the question of enhancement of rent,
8. It will be pertinent to mention that by bringing evidence on a particular issue the purpose of evidence of the parties is that exact factual position as well as relevancy of the connected material be brought to the knowledge of the Court to enable it to pass an order. In certain situations the Court/Judge has its own knowledge in respect to the facts or material which is connected with the issue involved in the case, For example the environmental condition, pollution in the country, poverty and increase in the price etc., therefore, if knowledge of the Court itself is beneficial A towards the decision of one issue then there is no restriction under the law that said knowledge cannot be exercised. The factors in section 8 of the SRPO towards determination of enhancement of rent are mostly relevant to the general public knowledge and the Presiding Officer of the Court itself a member of the public can have the knowledge in that respect. The learned Additional District Judge has also considered in the instant case increase in the labour charges and although this is no factor given in section 8 of the SRPO but overall situation going on in the country can be apprehended by the Court itself to visualize overall impact of the inflation and increase on the existing rent and rent can accordingly be enhanced.
9. Keeping in view the evidence of the TCS official as well as official of the Excise and Taxation Department and taking notice of general increase in every item, I observe that order of increase by the Additional District Judge to the extent of Rs,17 per sq. Ft. Per month B from the date of application with further 10% annual increase is justified. The authorities cited by the learned counsel for the respondent No,1 have elaborately mentioned pros and cons to be considered for the purpose of increase in rent and that all the four factors given in section 8 of the SRPO, 1979, are not necessary to be available at one time but the rent can be increased on the basis of factors available. In the circumstances, I find no merits in this petition and is dismissed and the order, dated 31-8-2008 of the learned Additional District Judge is upheld with the modification that the increase in the fair rent so fixed will be implemented in terms of section 9 of SRPO, i,e, after three years from the date of fixation of fair rent.