SYED MUHAMMAD FAROOQ SHAH, J.---Being owner and landlord of State Life Building No, 04, situated at Shahrah-e-Liaquat, Karachi, hereinafter called "said building", the Petitioner has filed an application, Rent Case No, 448/2004, under section 8 of the Sindh Premises Rented Ordinance, 1979, for fixation fair rent against the Respondent No, 1.
2. On pleadings of the parties, the learned Rent Controller has formulated a point for determination that "As to whether the fair rent of the demised premises is Rs,12/- per square feet per month" and concluded the proceedings with findings while fixing Rs, 8/- per square feet per month from filing of rent case. The trial Court in penultimate paragraph recorded the following conclusion vide order dated 31.07.1999:- "In the light of above discussion and in the light of admission the court has fixed the fair rent of the demised premises at the rate of Rs,8.00 per square feet per month from filing of this case and the opponent is directed to pay rent to the applicant at the rate of Rs, 8.00 per square feet per month from April, 1994 within six months three equal installments after deduction of paid rent, which was paid/deposited by the opponent to the applicant at the rate of Rs, 599/- (@ 1.95 per square feet per month) and future rent at the fair rent. There is no order as to costs".
3. However, both parties have preferred appeals viz. FRA No,557/2001 by the defendant and FRA No, 552-A/2001 by the landlord, State Life Insurance Corporation. In its common judgment dated 26.09.2007, the Appellate Court though did not interfere with the findings of learned trial Court/rent controller and observed that the learned rent controller has properly appreciated the evidence i.e, documentary evidence and the attending circumstance and ultimately fair rent was determined at Rs, 6.27/- per square feet per month, (instead of Rs, 8 p.m.) hence no case for interference was made out. The Appellate Court has further held that the impugned order of the learned Rent Controller is based on sound footing with proper appreciation of law and evidence on record and impugned order was maintained in circumstances, therefore, both appeals were dismissed with no order as to costs.
4. At the very outset, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that apparently the observation of the Appellate Court is not maintainable in law as nowhere the learned trial Court has determined fair rent @ Rs, 6.25 per square feet per month, as mentioned supra, the learned Rent Controller in its order dated 31.07.1999 fixed fair rent @ 8/- per square feet per month from April, 1994. It is next argued by the learned Counsel that the prevailing rate of rent during the period of filing of rent case, instituted on 04.04.1991, the rate of rent of similar premises situated in the similar circumstances and the adjoining locality was ranging from Rs, 10/- to 12/-per square feet per month excluding electricity and other amenity charges and that during mentioned period and if the said premises a rented out to a new tenant, it can have fetched rent of more than Rs, 12/-per square feet per month. For the sake of convenience, provisions of Section 8 of SRPO, 1979 is reproduced hereinbelow:- "Section 8(1) Fair rent. (1) The Controller shall, on application by tenant or landlord determines fair rent of the premises after taking into consideration the following facts:- a) The rent of similar premises situated in the similar circumstances, in the same or 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.(2)"where any addition to or, improvement in any premises has been made or any tax, or other public charges have been levied, enhanced, reduced or withdrawn in respect thereof or any fixtures such as lifts or electric or other fittings have been provided therein subsequent to the determination of the fair rent of such premises, the fair rent shall not withstanding the provisions of section 9 be determined or, as the case may be revised after taking such shares into consideration".
5. Perhaps, the learned Appellate Court without pursuing the order dated 31.07.1999 passed in Rent Case No,448/1994 by the Rent Controller has erroneously been determined the rate of Rs,6.27 per square feet per month through the order passed by Rent Controller was maintained and the appeals were dismissed. In such view of the matter and keeping into account, the premises situated in the adjoining locality in similar circumstances were leased out at the rate of. Rs, 12/-per square feet per month excluding electricity and other utility charges, therefore, it shall be appropriate that the fair rent amounting to Rs, 8/- as fixed and determined by the learned Rent Controller, which order was maintained by the Appellate Court is upheld. Prima facie, the impugned judgment is erroneous upto the fixation of fair rent to Rs, 6.27/- square feet per month, which is result of misreading of evidence or by ignoring the material piece of evidence on record or through perverse appreciation of evidence.
' It appears that there is some typing or some other type of error appears in the Appellate impugned order by maintaining the order of original Court for the said period commencing from institution of rent case i.e, 04.04.1999. However, it need not to iterate that it is open secret that cost of construction has been raised to manifold including property taxes have been enhanced and keeping in view the location of the premises, environmental situation as demised premises is located in the prime area of Shahrah-e-Liaquat, Karachi i.e, renowned market of generators, therefore, keeping in view the locality of the property A beside other factors mentioned above, the increase in the fair rent can be claimed with passage of time, if needs so. Consequently, impugned order to the extent of fixation of rent 6.27/- per square fee per month is set aside. However, the order of learned Rent Controller is maintained.
' Captioned petition is decided in the manner indicated above.