1. SALEEM AKHTAR, J--The petitioner's father alongwith his family members was running a charitable dispensary in Ajmer City, and on that basis he was allotted charitable dispensary named and styled as Serve Hoteshi Ayurvedic dispensary located in M.R.3/16 Boulton Market, Karachi by the then Rent Controller/Administrator and Chairman, Allotment Board, Karachi. This allotment was issued in the year 1948. In the year 1984 the charitable dispensary was declared as evacuee property and some of its portions were transferred to the claimants. The matter was agitated before various Settlement Authorities and ultimately the High Court passed a judgment holding that the property was an evacuee trust property and did not form part of compensation pool and therefore, could not be transferred to the claimants to whom allotments had been made. It has been alleged that to bring the case to this successful conclusion the petitioner's father had played an important role and in this regard his services were appreciated by the relevant quarters. After the status of the property was fully secured by the petitioner's father he applied for a long lease for the charitable dispensary, but so far no action has been taken on it. During the pendency of these proceedings, the respondent No.3 proceeded to assess the property and issued proposal notices dated 4-7-1979 in respect of various tenements. It may be mentioned that the premises which were allotted to the petitioner's father were for the purpose of assessment divided in several tenaments. The petitioner's father filed an appeal and by order dated 29-3-1979 the respondent No.2 fixed the rent of each tentamen separately total of which came to Rs.395 with effect from-1-7- 1979. The petitioner paid the same and it has been alleged that this payment was made on the verbal assurance of the respondent No.3 that the amount so paid will be adjusted in lease money when the case for lease is decided by the Board. It has been alleged that in contravention of the Scheme for Management and Disposal of Urban Evacuee Trust Properties 1977, the respondent No.3 sent proposal notices dated 31-10--1982 proposing reassessment of rent of tenements raising the total rent of all the tenements to Rs.1,250 p.m. With effect-from 1-1-1982. The petitioner filed objections and the respondent So.3 re-assessed it at Rs.900 P.M. With effect from 1-1-1982. Against this order the petitioner filed an appeal before the respondent No.2 which was dismissed and the Revision filed against the same order met the same fate.
2. Mr. Latifur Rahman Survery the learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the tenements are used for charitable purposes and therefore the rent fixed is illegal, and not in accordance with the policy. It has further been contended that the petitioner has spent huge amount on repairs, and therefore, due consideration should have been given tot fixing the rate of rent. These contentions of the learned counsel cannot be sustained as the rate of rent fixed by the respondents is in accord with the scheme and the provisions of law applicable to it. The Appellate as well as the Revisional Authorities have considered it and have noted that the building consists of an area of 3.078 sq. Feet in which ground floor is used as 'Shifakhana' while the upper portion is the residence of the petitioner. Taking into consideration the location of the building in a prominent commercial area like Boulton Market, it has been held that the rent fixed by the Appellate Authority is on the lower side. The reasoning given by the Appellate and the Revisional Authorities are proper and well considered.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner then contended that the revision of rent is not in accordance with the scheme as it should have been made after a period of five years from the last assessment which was made in the year 1975`. Para 10 of the Scheme for the Management of Urban Trust Properties 1975 provides that periodical assessment of rent shall be made by the District Officer concerned after every five years. The first assessment was to be carried out with effect from 1st of January. 1977. The respondents have not filed any counter-- affidavit but in their comments filed earlier they have stated that the issuance of proposal notices for enhancement of rent was delayed till July, 1979. Benefit of failure or negligence on part of the staff of respondent No.3, however, was given to the petitioner and] the rent at re-assessed rate was realised with effect from 1-1-1979. Therefore, in view of the admission of the respondent, the re-assessment was made with effect from 1-1-1979. According to pare 10 of the Scheme referred above rent assessment can be made only after 5 years. On a clear mathematical calculation the respondent No.3 could have reassessed the rent only after expiry of period of five years from 1-1-1979. As the rate of reassessm ent is proper and legal we will order that it should be made effective from 1st of January, 1984 instead of 1st January, 1982. With this observation, the petition stand disposed of.