1. ' This appeal is directed against the order of the Xlth Senior Civil Judge and Rent Controller, Karachi, in Rent Case No, 3054/80, whereby he fixed the fair rent of the premises allowing 10% per annum increase in the existing rent of Rs,300 per month.'
2. ' The application was filed by the landlord/appellant under section 8 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 praying that the rent of House No,III/G/8/10, Nazimabad,Karachi, may be fixed taking into consideration the similar rent prevalent in the locality. Both the appellant and the respondent produced several witnesses who stated that the rent of the similar premises in the locality were much more than the rent paid by the respondent presently. According to the oral evidence produced by the appellant the rent of similar premises in the locality was stated to be between Rs,700 and Rs,800 while according to the evidence produced by the respondent the rent was between Rs,300 and Rs,400 per month. However, no documentary evidence was led by either party in support of their respective contentions and the Rent Controller on the assessment of oral evidence produced before him came to the conclusion that rent prevalent in the locality for similar premises is Rs,500 per month. However, he allowed increase in the existing rent at the rate of 10$ per annum on the existing rent namely Rs,300 per month. The appellant has challenged the order of the Rent Controller and contends that the findings of the Rent Controller allowing increase at the rate of 10% per annum is erroneous on the face of it as section 9 has no application in the present case. Although the Rent Controller has not referred to section 9 specifically in the 'order' but it appears that he has allowed the increase in the rent on the basis of the limit laid down in subsection (2) of section 9 of the said Rented Prer yes Ordinance, 1979. Mr. Moinuddin Ahmed, the learned counsel for the respondent contends that subsection (2) of section 9 is also applicable to the case where fair rent has not been fixed and the application is made for its fixation under section 9 of the Ordinance. This contention of the learned counsel however, does not appear to be correct as the two sections namely sections 8 and 9 of the Ordinance are independent of each other. Under section 8 the Controller is empowered to fix the fair rent either on the application of the landlord or that of the tenant taking into consideration the rent prevalent for the similar premises in the locality, rise in cost of construction and repair charges, imposition of new taxes, if any, after commencement of the tenancy and the annual value of the premises, if any, on which property tax is levied. The Rent Controller is also entitled to take into consideration while fixing the fair rent, any addition or improvement in any premises made or any tax or other public charge levied, enhanced reduce or withdrawn in respect of such premises or any fixtures such as lifts or electric or other fittings having been provided subsequent to the determination of the fair rent of the premises. Section 9 of the Ordinance, on the other hand fixes on outer limit for increase of the rent in cases where fair rent has been determined as provided in section 8. It is, therefore, rightly contended by the appellant that section 9 had no application in the present case as no fair rent of the premises was fixed. In view of the finding of the Rent Controller that the Rent of the similar premises in the locality is Rs,500 per month he ought to have fixed the fair rent of the premises at Rs,500 per month. I accordingly allow this appeal, set aside the order of the Rent Controller and fix the fair rent of the premises at Rs,500 which will be effective from 5-12-1981, namely the date of the order of Rent Controller.
3. ' After I dictated the order the learned counsel for the respondent requested that some time may be given to respondent to pay difference in rent. He is allowed three months to pay the difference.
4. Appeal is allowed accordingly.