' This second appeal is directed against the impugned judgment dated 2nd March, 1974 of learned Additional District Judge, Karachi, whereby appeal against the dismissal of application for fixation of fair rent by the Rent Controller, has been dismissed.
' Shortly stated the facts are that Mohammad Akhtar appellant before me, is the occupant of Shop No, 43 in Khatoon Hadi Market Nazimabad and filed an application for fixation of fair rent before Additional Civil Judge and Rent Controller, Karachi. According to the appellant the rent claimed by the respondent/landlady at the rate of Rs, 60 plus rates and taxes at Rs, 15 with the total of Rs, 75 per month was exorbitant and unjust and he prayed for its reduction to Rs, 22 per month. The landlady resisted this application and in the written statement took the plea that for the first time after the construction, the shop in question has been let out at the rate of Rs, 75 per month as per license agreement.
' Appellant Mohammad Akhtar examined himself before the Rent Controller and in support of his claim produced Exh. 6, which is certified copy of the order of Additional Rent Controller dated 9th April, 1959 fixing low rent of the shops in the same market and Exh. 7 and Exh. 8 which are two rent receipts issued by the landlady to one other tenant by name Mohammad Ismail. He has produced letter Exh. 9 addressed to the landlady enclosing cheque for rent, reply of landlady Exh. 10 whereby he has been informed that he is a licensee and not a tenant and is called upon to clear arrears at the rate of Rs, 75 per month. In the cross-examination Mohammad Akhtar has admitted, that contractual rent is Rs, 60+1575 per month and could not show any receipt for having paid the rent at the rate lesser than Rs, 75 per month in respect of the disputed shop. He has admitted that the landlady has been charging rent in respect of adjoining shops at the rate of Rs, 80 and 70 per month. Appellant has also examined Mohammad Alam, tenant of shop No, 4 in Hadi Market, who stated that he paid rent of Rs, 22 plus Rs, 5.50 conservancy charges since 1957 and this rent was fixed by the Rent Controller. In cross-examination he admitted that prior to the appellant one Nawaz Khan was tenant in disputed shop and he did not know whether Nawaz Khan was paying rent of Rs, 80 per month to the landlady.
' On behalf of respondent/landlady her Rent Collector Mohiuddin Awan was examined. He has produced agreement Exh. D-1 executed by him and the appellant and further stated that the agreed rent was Rs, 60 plus 15 for water and conservancy charges per month. He also produced rent agreement executed by previous tenant Nawaz Khan Exh. 13 and copy of compromise decree against Nawaz Khan in a rent case Exh. 14 showing rent payable at the rate of Rs, 80 per month. He also produced an extract from K. M. C. Register Exh. 15 showing assessment for the year 1958-59 and disputed Shop No, 43 has been shown as assessed at Rs,
75. He has also produced rent agreement of adjoining shops Exhs. 16 to 18 carrying rent at Rs, 75 per month. It is further stated by this witness that shop of appellant is a corner shop and has roads on two sides and is in main commercial area. The witness has also produced rent agreements in respect of adjoining shops Nos. 39, 41 and 46 as Exh. 19, 20 and 21 showing rent Rs, 75 per month. This is the evidence brought on the record by the parties to the proceedings. No evidence was produced by them with regard to the cost of construction of the premises in this dispute.
' The main argument advanced on behalf of the appellant is that fair rent should have been fixed by the Rent Controller at the rate suggested by the appellant which is in perfect accord with the previous judgment of Additional Rent Controller, copy of which is on the record as Exh.
6. The learned Rent Controller has declined to rely upon the judgment Exh. 6, as basis for determination of fair rent in the instant case for the reasons firstly that respondent has produced.
Certified copy of the judgment of the High Court in Second Appeal No, 292/63 in which the findings contained in Exh. 6 were not upheld by the High Court ; secondly that Hadi Market is a big market consisting of 105 shops and 27 flats let to various tenants as such each shop is a distinct building in A itself within the meaning of section 2 (a) and section 4 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959. This view finds support from Manzoor Ahmed and others v. Mohammad Sharif and others. (1). It is held in Byramji Mama v. Abdul Karim and others (2) that fair rent fixed for one of the tenements in the building is not binding on the tenants of other tenements who were not parties to the proceedings. In the instant case appellant was not a party to the proceedings resulting into Exh.
6. Thirdly it is observed by the Rent Controller that shop of the appellant is a corner shop with two roads in front of it. Keeping in view these points and in the absence of evidence regarding costs of construction the Rent Controller has fixed the fair rent to be the same which is contractual rent at the rate of Rs, 60 plus 15 which comes to Rs, 75 per month. This is fully supported by evidence of the parties as brought on the record and admissions made by the appellant in his deposition. The learned Additional District Judge has agreed with the findings of Rent Controller. The question with regard to the determination of fair rent is a question of fact on which the findings of the two Courts below are concurrent. There has been no misreading of evidence. The findings of the two Courts below are very consistent with the evidence brought on the record and also are strictly according to the provisions of law. In fact both the Courts below have given sound and cogent reasons.
' In the circumstances no interference is called for in the second appeal, which is hereby dismissed with costs. {{FOOT NOTE}}
(1) PLD 1970 Lah. 391 (2) PLD 1968 SC 286 {{FOOT NOTE}}