' Almost all the material facts in this case are either admitted or undisputed. The respondents are the joint owners of the building known as Enam Ellahi Corner', situated on Plot No,1-A, Shaheed-e- Millat Road, Modern Cooperative Housing Society Ltd., Karachi. The appellant is a tenant of Shop No,8 of this building at a monthly rent of Rs,307.50. It is the case of the respondents that the rent paid by the appellant is ridiculously low and not according to the prevailing rate of rent in the locality. It is also averred that the cost of construction and maintenance has increased tremendously and consequently it was prayed by the respondents that the fair rent of the premises may be fixed at more than .Rs,2,500 p.m. The appellant resisted the application for fixation of fair rent various grounds. According to him the premises in question is not situated, on main Shaheed- e-Millat Road, but it is located at the back of the service la4and looking to the prevailing rate of rent of the similar premises, the request' for the increase of rent was not justified. Some legal pleas about the maintainability of the application filed under section 8 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, were also raised by the appellant.
2. The parties went to trial on the following issues:-
(i) Whether the rent of the demised premises is liable to be increased, if yes, at what rate?
(ii) What should the order be?
3. The respondents examined one of them, namely, Masood Ahmad (P.W.1). To rebut this evidence the appellant put himself in the witness-box (D.W.1). On the assessment of evidence available on record the learned Vth Senior Civil Judge and Rent Controller (East) Karachi, fixed the rate of rent at Rs,1,200 p.m. Effective from the date of order. This order dated 1-4-1990 is the subject-matter of the present appeal filed under section 21 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979.
4. I have heard Mr. Abdul Wajid Wyne, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Rehmat Ellahi, learned counsel for the respondents. I have also gone through the record of this case carefully.
5. There are certain facts in this case which are either not in dispute or the same are proved from the record. These are:-
(i) That the premises in dispute is situated on main Shaheed-e-Millat Road, Karachi, a predominantly commercial area.
(ii) That originally only one shop was rented out to the appellant on a rent of Rs,175 p.m.
(iii) That subsequently three shops were merged into the premises in dispute and let out at a monthly rent of Rs,300 p.m.
(iv) That the premises in dispute has got an area of 752 sq. Feet.
(v) That the rent has not been increased from the very inception of tenancy after the amalgamation of three shops into one.
(vi) That other tenants in the same building are paying much more than what the appellant has been paying, the details of other tenants are as follows:-
(a) Kaleemullah Khan, tenant of Shop No,1, having an area of 210 sq. Feet is paying rent at Rs,500 p.m., viz., at the rate of Rs,2.38 per sq. Foot.
(h) Muhammad Farrukh, tenant of Shop No,2, having an area of 210 sq. Feet is paying the rent at Rs,500 p.m., viz. At the rate of Rs,2.38 per sq. Foot.
(c) Sikandar Ismail, the tenant of Shop No,5; having an area of 3(X) sq. Feet is paying rent at Rs,500 p.m. Viz., Rs,1.67 per sq. Foot.
(d) Abdul Razak, tenant of Shop No,6, having an area of 252 sq.Feet is paying rent at Rs,500 p.m., viz., Rs,1.98 per sq.Foot.
(e) Mst. Sughra Bcgum, tenant of Shop No,7, having an area of 252 sq. Feet, is paying rent at Rs,SX) p.m., viz., Rs,1.98 per sq. Foot.
(f) Tahseen Pasha, the tenant of Shop No,9, having an area of 325 sq.Feet is paying rent at Rs,500 p.m. Viz. At Rs,1.53 per sq.Foot.
(g) Mirza Corporation, tenant of Shop No,10, having an area of 252 Sq. Feet is paying rent of Rs,500 p.m.. Viz., Rs,1.98 per sq. Foot.
(h) M/s. Habib Bank Ltd. Tenant or premises on ground floor, having an area of 750 sq.Feet is paying rent at Rs,4000 p.m. Viz; Rs,5.33 per sq.Foot.
(vii) That the cost of construction and maintenance has increased tremendously during the recent years.
6. Bearing in mind the above admitted/proved facts, let me now examine, whether the ingredients of section 8 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, were satisfied. Since the decision of this case hinges on the interpretation of section 8 of the above Ordinance, it would be convenient to reproduce it in extenso:- "(i) 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 premises 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.
(2) .................................................
7. The ingredients of determination of fair rent under section 8 the the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, would clearly be satisfied if the case falls within any one of these parts. Each of these four parts is distinct and independent of the other three and whether a case falls within any one part or not has to be judged by reference to the ingredients of that part and not of any other part. The ingredients of one part cannot be projected in the other parts, though the extent to which each one of them may influence the decision would be materially different. The use of words If any' in clauses (c) and (d) of section 8 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, makes the entire position clear and it postulates that the determination of fair rent by the Rent Controller is not dependent upon the consideration of all the four factors. The language used by the legislature is the true depository of the legislative intend, and words, phrases and sentences occurring in a statutory provision must be read together and construed in the light of. The object of such provision. The cases reported as Abdul Ghaffar v. Noor Jahan Malik 1987 CLC 2182, Mst. Aqila Khatoon v. Abu Bakar Khan PLD 1987 Kar. 541, Messrs Abdul Majeed Chawla & Sons v. Anwar Yahya 1990 M LD 1711, and Messrs Coffee Club and 4 others v. Pakistan National Shipping Corporation, Karachi 1991 M LD 644, are the nearest parallel to the above view.
8. Admittedly the rent of commercial premises situated in the same building is much higher than the rent paid by the appellant-to respondents. The premises in question is situated in a predominantly commercial area. One of the objects of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, is to make effective provisions for regulation of relations between landlords and tenants and protect their interests in respect of rented premises. The law has to safeguard the interests of tenants from unscrupulous and avaricious landlords, but not at the cost of reasonable return to the landlords. In order to keep a balance it is necessary that the fair rent be determined in the light of the criteria laid down by section 8 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979. Again we should not start with any presumption against the landlords and discard their demand for increase of rent simply on the ground that they exploit the tenants. We should also bear in mind that costs of construction and maintenance has increased tremendously and there can be no two opinions about it.
9.Having regard to the above factual and legal position, I find no merits in this appeal, which is accordingly dismissed with No, order as to costs.