' This is an appeal under section 21 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, (hereinafter referred to as Ordinance) against the order dated 30-8-1980 of VIth Rent Controller, Karachi whereby he has dismissed the Rent Case No, 3745 of 1978 of the appellant.
2. The facts of the Rent Case are that the appellants are landlords of property known as Rex Chambers on Survey No, 27, Sheet No, S.B. 5, situated at Abdullah Haroon Road, Karachi and opponents are their tenants of the entire 4th and 5th floor at the rate of Rs,7,628.40 per month plus Rs,878 as water and conservancy charges plus Rs,382 per month as betterment tax. The premises were let out to the respondent as per agreement executed by the parties on 20th day of January, 1969. Under clause (1) of the agreement premises were measured and the area in occupation of the respondents was 12,320 sq. feet at the rate of 0.62 paisas per sq. feet, therefore the rent was calculated as stated above. The appellants filed Rent Case on the point of default.
' The respondents in their written statement stated that originally the demise premises were rented out at the monthly rent of Rs,4,650 subject to adjustment on final measurement which is to be carried out jointly after occupation of the premises by the respondents. The final measurement was carried out by the appellants and rent at the rate of Rs,6,200 was calculated on 10,000 Sq. feet and after that the appellants used to receive the rent from the respondents at the rate of Rs,6,200 without any objection. The Rent Controller on the pleading of the parties framed following issues:- "(1) What is the rate of rent?
(2) Whether the respondents are willful defaulter in payment of rent?"
3. The learned Rent Controller decided that there was no default and the rate of rent is Rs,6,200 per month.
4. The appellant before the Rent Controller has stated that an agreement of tenancy was executed on 20-6-1969 and according to clause (I) of the said agreement the respondents are in occupation of 12,320 sq: feet and thus the rent comes to Rs,7,638.40 per month but he has admitted in his cross-examination that he was charging rent at the rate of Rs,6,200 from August, 1969 to April, 1978.
He has also stated that initially the rent was Rs,4,650 per month but subsequently from August, 1969 onward the rate was fixed at Rs,6,200 and he first time after May, 1978 informed the respondent to pay rent at the rate of Rs,7,638.40. The agreement was for 5 years and it expired on 28-1-1974 and even after expiry of the agreement the rent at the rate of Rs,6,200 was being accepted by the appellant. The contention of the appellant is that the respondent is in occupation of more area, therefore he is liable to pay at the rate of Rs,7,638.40 and is a defaulter. He has not been able to substantiate his contention as no documentary evidence such as report of Architect or any other authority about the measurement has been produced. Appellant has also been accepting rent at the rate of Rs,6,200 after expiry of agreement of tenancy. There is nothing on record to show that the respondent is actually in possession of 12,320 sq. feet however it is open to the parties to agitate in the proper manner but at this stage it cannot be said that appellant committed any default in payment of rent. The Order of the Rent Controller in dismissing the rent application of the appellant is proper one and does not call for any interference. The appeal is dismissed with no orders as to costs.