1. ' AFTAB AHMED GORAR, J.--- By this single order I propose to dispose of above said three Constitutional Petitions as in all the petitions petitioner/tenant is one and same and the tenements in question in all the petitions are situated in the same building, besides the facts as well as law involved in all the petitions are also almost.
2. ' Brief facts of the case, as disclosed in the memo of petitions, are that the petitioner in all the petitions viz. Singer Pakistan Limited is tenant in respect of office premises bearing Nos.S-14, 609 and 610 situated in Beaumont Plaza, Beaumont Road, Civil Lines Quarters Karachi and that petitioners in C.Ps.167 of 2011, 168 of 2011 and 169 of 2011 are the landlords of the said premises respectively. Upon the expiry of tenancy agreement the respondents/landlords requested the petitioner/ tenant to vacate the premises whereupon the petitioner requested to renew the tenancy agreement for further 5 years and also proposed to increase the rent by 7.5%, however the respondents informed the petitioner that the prevailing market rate of the similar premises in the locality is Rs,85/- to 90/- per sq. Ft. They further asserted that due to high rate of inflation the cost of construction and repairs has also been increased very drastically. Despite repeated requests, the petitioners failed to vacate the premises and ultimately started depositing the rent in Misc. Rent Case. Faced with such situation, the respondents filed, rent applications praying therein for determining the fair rent of the premises at the rate of Rs,85-90/sq. Ft ' The petitioners contested the rent application and filed written statement wherein besides raising preliminary legal objection as to maintainability of the rent application, denied rent application and prayed for its dismissal.
3. ' After recording of evidence and hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the learned Rent Controller vide order 31-5-2010 allowed the rent applications and fixed the fair rent of the rate of Rs,85/- per sq. Ft per month from the date of institution the rent application with increase of 10% per annum on the existing rate rent after every year. The said order was challenged by the petitioner in appeal which was also dismissed vide order dated 11-12-2010 passed by VIth Additional District Judge, Karachi South, hence these petitions.
4. ' Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the two courts below erred in law and on facts while passing the impugned order and have misread the evidence adduced by the parties. He further contended that the learned Rent Controller has fixed the fair rent merely on the basis of statement of the landlord that the rate of rent of similar premises in the locality is Rs,85/- to 90/- per sq. Ft. Whereas failed to take into consideration other three factors as enumerated in section 8 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979. He further contended that the two Courts have misinterpreted the relevant law and failed to take into consideration properly the principles laid down by the, superior courts. He prayed for the setting aside of the impugned orders. He relied upon the case-law reported in PLD 1993 Karachi 137, 1991 CLC 351, 1995 CLC 202, 1991 CLC 351, 2010 CLC 151, 1992 MLD 1588 and NLR 1990 AC 585.
5. ' Conversely, learned counsel for the respondents contended that the constitutional petition against the concurrent findings of the two courts below is not maintainable; that orders passed by the two courts below are well-reasoned and in accordance with the relevant law on the point; that both the courts below have elaborately discussed the evidence led by the parties as well as the relevant provision of the law and have taken into consideration all the four ingredients of section 8 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 and have assigned cogent and sound reasons for passing the impugned orders, thus the same require no interference by this Court in exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction. He prayed for dismissal of the petitions.
6. ' I have heard the arguments advanced learned counsel for the parties and also perused the material available on the record.
7. ' Before venturing into the controversies appropriate to reproduce hereunder the provisions of section 8 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 which read as under:-- "Fair rent.--- (1) The Controller shall, on application by the tenant or landlord determine fair rent of the premises after taking into consideration the following factors:---
(a) the rent of similar premises situation in the similar circumstances, in the same adjoining locality.
(b) the rise in cost of construction and repair charges.
(c) the imposition of new taxes, if any, after commencement of the tenancy; and
(d) the annual value of the premises, if any, on which property tax is levied."
8. ' From the perusal of the Affidavit in Evidence of the respondents' witness/attorney namely Ali Asghar, it appear that he deposed in the following terms:- "8. I say that the rent in the similar premises situated in the same buildings are Rs,85-90/ sq. Ft. And The last rent paid by the opponent to the applicant was Rs,29,282/- @ Rs,20/sq. Ft. Which is almost 4.5 times lower than the prevailing market rates. Therefore, the rent of the premises is ought to be increased in accordance with the prevailing market value.
9. I say that due to high rate of inflation the cost of construction and repairs has also been increased very drastically, as such the increase in the monthly rent is also necessary on this ground as well."
9. ' From the perusal of the cross-examination of the respondents/ landlords I have not been able to find anything which could give inference that the evidence adduced by the respondents was shaken in any manner on the above points. In the case reported in PLD 1987 Kar. 541 it was held as under:--- "The next contention of the learned counsel for the appellant to the effect that the learned Rent Controller cannot determine the fair rent unless all the four conditions or factors as enumerated in section 8(1) of the Ordinance co-exist, is equally fallacious and unsustainable."
10. ' In the case of Messrs Shamim Akhtar v. State Life Insurance Corporation of Pakistan Karachi and 2 others reported in PLD 2005 Karachi 554 where in similar circumstances rent was determined and fixed by the Rent Controller as well as by the Appellate Court, the petition was dismissed by this Court. Para 4 of the judgment being relevant for just decision of the present petitions, is reproduced as under:- "Reverting to the facts of the present case it will be seen that admittedly case premises were let out to the to the petitioner in the year 1959-60 at the rate of Rs,100, per month when the cost of construction and the cost of land, even in the heart of the city was nominal in comparison to the prevalent cost of land and cost of construction. Rent Controller while fixing the rent of the case premises at the Rate of Rs,12, per sq. Feet has taken into consideration not only this aspect of the case but also other documentary evidence placed on record by respondent No,1 to sow that in the same in locality other properties have been let out by the landlords even at the rate of Rs,45, per sq. Feet."
11. ' In the same judgment while discussing the scope of the constitutional petition in respect of rent matters it was held that the jurisdiction of this court under Article 199 of the Constitution is extraordinary in nature which is aimed at proper dispensation of justice and to avoid abuse of the process of law. Therefore, normally such jurisdiction is not to be exercised by the High Court to interfere with the discretionary orders of the subordinate Courts, where jurisdiction has been conferred upon it by some special statutes.
12. ' In the case of Hafiz Shafatullah v. Mst. Shamim Jahan and another (PLD 2004 Karachi 502), it was observed that that it has been repeatedly held by conferring only one right of appeal under section 21 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 the legislature in its wisdom seemed to have tried to shorten the span of litigation in rent cases and in such circumstances interference by this Court in exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution in judicial orders passed by the Tribunal of competent jurisdiction, merely on the ground that another view of the matter was also possible, would not serve any other purpose but would add to the misery of prolonged litigation for the parties and would defeat the spirit and object of statute.
13. Admittedly, the petitioner is in occupation of the premises in question since long when cost of the land as well as that of construction was so nominal in comparison to the prevalent cost of the land and the construction etc. Even the taxes have been increased. The premises increased. The premises in question is situated in the heart of the city.
14. ' There is no cavil to the proposition laid down in the cases relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, however the same are either not helpful to the case of the petitioner or the same are distinguishable and not attracted to the facts of the instant case.
15. For the foregoing reasons, I do not see any justification to interfere with the concurrent findings of the two courts below, with the result petitions are dismissed in limine. Petitioners are directed to hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the tenements to the respective respondent/landlord within a period of thirty days.