1. ' This appeal arises out of an order dated 3rd November 1986 passed by the IIIrd Senior Civil Judge/A.S.J/Rent Controller (South) Karachi, whereby the application under section 8 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 (hereinafter called "the Ordinance") for determining the fair rent of the West Wing in the Volkart Building on Plot No,32, Sheet No, R.Y-5 was dismissed.
2. ' On 17th March, 1981 the appellants filed an application under section 8 of the Ordinance in the Court of XIIth Rent Controller at Karachi, stating, inter alia, that they are the owners of the building known as Volkart Building. The respondents are their tenants in respect of West Wing, ground floor of the said building on rent of Rs,2,200 per month calculated at the rate of 0.84 square foot. The said rent was effective from September 1975 and no rent had been fixed for the said premises though the rents of similar premises in the vicinity and even in the same building are much higher and have increased upto 300 per cent. It was further averred that the rent of similar premises situated in the same building is Rs,8 per square foot which is more than 800 per cent of the rent of the said premises. It was also pleaded that due to rise in the cost of construction and repair charges upto 300 per cent and the re-assessment of the said premises for the purpose of annual rental value which had increased upto 452 per cent the over all cost of maintaining the premises has increased upto 300 per cent; whereas the rent of the demised premises has remained unchanged ever since 1975. The respondents despite the request made by the appellants refused to accept any reasonable proposal to increase the rent. The Rent Controller was, therefore, requested to determine the fair rent of the said premises by increasing the same at least by 200 per cent.
3. ' The respondents filed written statement admitting that the rent of the demised premises is Rs,2,200 per month with effect from Sept. 1975 but denied all the other allegations made in the application. A preliminary issue was also raised to the effect that the application was not maintainable in law. They also stated that originally the rent of the demised premises was Rs,500 per month and with a view to maintain the cordial and good relations with the appellants it was enhanced to Rs,2,200 per month with effect from September 1975. They further pleaded that they have established a business of travel agency after incurring heavy initial expenses for the maintenance and upkeeping of the premises in their occupation. The further alleged that the appellants are in the habit of harassing them from time to time and disturbing them unnecessarily.
4. ' In support of their case the appellants examined three witnesses, namely, (1) S.D Butt, their Manager, Finance and Administration, (2) Mr. Muhammad Khawaja Ali, Chief Quantity Surveyor, Nespak and (3) Muhammad Maqsood Khan, Office Superintendent of Brooke Bond (Pak) Limited whereas on behalf of respondents Muhammad Saleem, their Accountant was examined.
5. Documentary evidence was also produced from both the sides. The learned Rent Controller vide his impugned order, as already stated, has dismissed the application. Hence this appeal.
6. ' I have heard Mr. S.A. Sarwana, Advocate on hebalf of the appellants and Mr. Muneeb Ahmad, Advocate for the respondent. I have also with the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties perused almost the entire evidence led by the parties in support of their respective cases. It was vehemently contended by Mr. SA. Sarwana, learned counsel for the appellants that the learned Rent Controller has failed to take into consideration the Lease Agreement dated 20th March, 1979 executed between the appellants and Banque De L'Indochine EtDe-Suez, whereby a portion of this very building was let out at the rate of Rs,8 per square foot in the front portion and Rs,5 per square foot of the rear room. Similarly the learned Rent Controller, according to Mr. SA. Sarwana, has failed to give due consideration to the increase in property taxes from the year 1974-75 to 1980-81. Lastly, he contended that the learned Rent Controller has erred in holding that it is necessary to carry out repairs and reconstruction of an old building before asking for determination of fair rent under section 8 of the Ordinance. According to Mr. Sarwana there is no such legal requirement and the order of the learned Rent Controller is, therefore, bad in law. It was on the other hand contended by Mr. Muneeb Ahmed, learned counsel for the respondents that the respondents are tenant of the appellants since 1972 whereas the premises were let out to the Bank for the first time in the year 1979 and hence the rent paid by the said Bank could not be made basis for fixation of fair rent.
7. Besides he drew my attention to the statement made by S.D. Butt, the witness of the appellants during his cross-examination wherein he has admitted that the Bank has left the premises. He also vigorously attempted with reference to the condition of tenancy made between the appellants and the Bank as well as the appellants and the respondents, to show that better terms were offered to the Bank under the lease agreement executed with them. He also submitted that when the property tax was raised then appellants did not file objection and hence the enhancement of property tax also could not be made the basis for fixation of fair rent in the instant case. He also contended that no new tax has been imposed hence the enhancement of the property tax was not of any material consequence. In his statement it is only the annual value of the premises which is to be taken into consideration for purposes of determining the fair rent under section 8 of the Ordinance.
8. I have given due consideration to the submissions made at the Bar. Upon perusal of the evidence on record I am of the opinion that the learned Rent Controller has failed to take into consideration certain doumentary evidence prevalent on record such as the lease-agreement executed between the appellants and the banking Co. On 20th March, 1979 which is available in the Rent Controller's record at pages 45 to 55. Likewise the learned Rent Controller has not dealt with the enhancement of property tax from 1974-75 at Rs,1,701 to Rs,24,918, in 1977-78 and again to Rs,1,96,852 (sic) in the year 1980-81. The vouchers showing the payment of property tax are prevalent at pages 123 and 127 etc. Of the Rent Controller's record. In this view of the matter without commenting upon the order under appeal and discussing the evidence prevalent on record, I would set aside the impugned order and remit the case to the learned Rent Controller for fresh adjudication, after providing the parties fair and reasonable opportunity of hearing and also producing additional evidence, if any.
9. ' In the result the appeal stands disposed of in the manner indicated above.