1. ' This First Rent Appeal has arisen from an application under section 8 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, seeking fixation of Fair Rent.
2. ' Before the Controller the application was resisted both on the question of maintainability and on merits. On hearing before me, however, the question of maintainability has not been raised and the only ground urged is that the order is bad on merits.
3. ' Section 8 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, postulates a number of grounds on which fixation of Fair Rent may be sought. Relevant grounds in the present context are those under section 8 (1) (a) and (b).
4. ' At the hearing, the landlord put in the Affidavit-in-Evidence of Sarfraz Ahmed, his Attorney. Such witness maintained that the rate of rent of similar premises in the same locality was 90 paisas per square foot and in support filed a photostat copy of a Licence Agreement in favour of one Feroz Ali.
5. Submission of a photostat copy was not questioned in Cross-Examination. It was, however, questioned that such was only a licence and not an agreement of tenancy. Some questions were put in Cross-Examination about some other premises but neither it was shown that the rentals were in the nature of Fair Rent nor it was brought out as to when the tenancies had commenced.
6. The rise in the cost of construction and the repairing charges were also not seriously disputed.
7. ' Shabbir Ahmed, Managing partner of the tenant, whose Affidavit-inEvidence, was produced, admitted that the two documents submitted by the tenant, pertaining to the prevailing rents in the locality, were not the originals and that he had not produced such originals. Such witness also admitted that at the time, of the inception of the tenancy a bag of cement was worth Rs,4 or 5 and its present price was Rs,
87. Likewise, , at the referred point of time, a ton of steel was worth only a few hundred rupees and its present value was around Rs,10,000 to Rs,11,000. Similarly, labour costs were Rs,5 to Rs,7 per day at the commencement of tenancy whereas such charges varied from Rs,100 to Rs,125 on the current rates.
8. ' Learned Controller did not allow the application on the basis of rental at paisas 90 per square foot, as claimed by the landlord, but allowed the application at a modest rate of paisas 50 per square foot fixing Fair Rent at the rate of Rs,1,015 per month as against Rs,475, which was the agreed rent between the parties.
9. ' It has been contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the licence at the rate of paisas 90 per month could not be relied upon for two reasons. Firstly, as it was a licence and secondly, because it was a mere photostat copy. On the other hand learned counsel in the same breath has argued that the two photostat copies of tenancy agreements produced by the appellant should have been made the basis of the order. In the first place, a licence is at a lower footing than an agreement of tenancy and rentals should, normally, be higher than mere licence fees. Secondly, the photostats copy of the licence was not challenged on the ground of its being a copy whereas the tenancy agreements relied upon by the appellant were so challenged. Under the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, which, per Article 1(2), applies to all judicial and quasi-judicial proceedings, excluding arbitrations, once a document is admitted in evidence without objection, its admissibility can be questioned but only in a limited measure. The provisions of the Qanun manifestly apply to rent proceedings under the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, except to the extent the same stand excluded under sections 19, 20 and 21 in the Ordinance, which is a special law and would prevail in so far as it be inconsistent with a general statute, the Qanun-e- Shahadat in the instant case. Reverting to the admission in evidence of the Licence Agreement, I do not think that any useful purpose would be served in opening up the controversy on that score at this stage, particularly when in exercise of appellate powers under section 21(3) of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance the original could even be entertained at the appellate level.
10. At any event, the application could be granted on an independent ground namely, the rise in the cost of construction and repair charges which, admittedly, have risen steeply during the continuation of the tenancy. Law does not make any distinction whether such cost of construction was actually applied in relation to a tenant-hold premises or repairs were acctually made on such basis. The only relevant factor is the rise in such costs. Besides, the various grounds contemplated in section 8(1) of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, may, if germane, be cumulatively considered for fixation of Fair Rent or, if it be just or proper, any of these grounds, to such extent as be relevant, by itself may be found sufficient for fixation of fair rent. In the latter situation, however, if any other ground contemplated in section 8(1) ibid. Reacts adversely to a claim of fixation of Fair Rent such is not be ignored and has to be given due effect to. It would be advantageous, now, to reproduce section 8(1) of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance:-- "8. 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 premise 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."
11. ' A plain reading of section 8(1) of the Ordinance leaves no manner of doubt that the Controller is required to fix Fair Rent, after taking into consideration the various factors contemplated under clauses (a) to (d) in subsection (1) of section 8, aforequoted. However, it is not unlikely that while some of such factors, when taken into consideration cumulatively, may point in one direction, the other or others inclining in the opposite direction. Similarly, some of such factors may not even be relevant at all. Thus, clause (c) in such subsection, pertaining to imposition of new taxes is conditioned by the phrase "if any" and it is likewise with clause (d) in subsection (1), pertaining to annual value of the premises on which property tax is levied, since such clause also is subject to the rider "if any". It, therefore, stands to reason, as observed above, that, in a oven case, coming up for fixation of Fair Rent, while all the factors contemplated in the four clauses of subsection (1) of section 8 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, would be relevant, it is the overall effect of the same that has to be reckoned in the fixation of Fair Rent. If one factor is cancelled by the other or others or adversely reflects on the other (s), such circumstance cannot be ignored. To put the rule precisely, it is on striking a just balance upon the various considerations in subsection (1) of section 8 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, and on preponderance of evidence, as to these various considerations, that a determination of Fair Rent is to be arrived at. These principles seem to have been duly followed by the Controller in this case, as examining all the relevant factors involved, he has fixed the Fair Rent, not on the basis of Paisas 90 per sq.Foot, as claimed by the landlord but, detracting all possible adverse inferences, has found Paisas 50 per sq. Foot to be reasonable and fair by way of rental under section 8 of the Ordinance of 1979.
12. ' For all the foregoing reasons, I am of the view that the fixation of Fair Rent in this case is not only modest but also just and proper and there is no reason or justification for interference with the impugned order. For these reasons I have dismissed this appeal as also C.MA. No, 105 of 1990.