' This appeal filed under section 21 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, has given rise to an interesting argument, but when the statutory provisions with which it is concerned are examined the decision does not present great difficulty.
2. The respondent is the owner/landlord of a building situated on Plot No,11/C, Hatim Alvi Road, Clifton, Karachi. There are eight flats in this building which are on lease with different persons. The appellant is in occupation of Flat No,7 at a monthly rent of Rs,800, while the rents of the remaining flats are as follows:--- {{Table}} Flat No Description Monthly rent
1. 1 bedroom (basement) Rs,2,000
2. 3 bedrooms (ground floor) Rs,3,500
3. 3 bedrooms (ground floor) Rs,3,000
4. 2 bedrooms (mezzanine floor) Rs,2,445
5. 2 bedrooms (ground floor) Rs,2,400
6. 3 bedrooms (first floor) Rs,1,600
7. 3 bedrooms (first floor) Rs, 800 (on lease with appellant)
8. 2 bedrooms (first floor) Rs,2,460 {{Table}}
3. It is the case of the respondent that there has been over 200% of increase in the cost of construction from the date the premises was let out to the appellant and the property tax has almost doubled during this period. On 27-8-1984 the respondent filed an application under section 8(1) of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, against the appellant for fixation of fair rent of the premises in question.
4. The appellant resisted the prayer of the respondent for getting the fair rent fixed. According to him he has been in occupation of the premises in question in one capacity or the other since 1965 and during all this period no repairs were carried out by the respondent.
5. The parties went to trial on the following issues:---
(i) Whether this Court has jurisdiction in the matter and the application is maintainable?
(ii) What should be the fair rent of the tenancy premises?
(iii) What should the decree (order) be?
6. The respondent examined himself (P.W.1), Mehboob Ali (P.W.2) and Aziz Ahmad (P.W.3). To rebut this evidence the appellant examined himself (D.W.1), and then closed the side.
7. On the assessm ent of evidence, both oral as well as documentary, the learned Rent Controller decided the main issue against the appellant fixing the fair rent of premises at Rs,2,500 p.m. with effect from 27.8.1984 when the application under section 8(1) of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, was filed. This order is the subject-matter of the present appeal.
8. I have heard the appellant in person and Miss Fozia Noorani, learned counsel for the respondent.
The appellant who has presented his case with ability has also placed on record his written arguments.
9. Section 8 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, deals with the determination of fair rent in the following words:--- "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 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) Where any addition to or, improvement in any premises has been made or any tax, or other public charge has been levied, enhanced, reduced or withdrawn in respect thereof, or any fixture such as lifts or electric or other fittings have been provided thereon subsequent to the determination of the fair rent of such premises the fair rent shall, notwithstanding the provisions of section 9 be determined or, as the case may be, revised after taking such changes into consideration."
10. Shaikh Azhar Mehmood (P.W.1) has testified about the quantum of rent paid by all other tenants of this building which are certainly much higher than the rent paid by the appellant. Mehboob All (P.W.2) who is tenant of Flat No,6 has testified that he has been paying Rs,3,000 per month as rent of the flat in his occupation since 1985. Aziz Ahmad Khan (P.W.3) who is in occupation of Flat No,2 has testified that he has been paying rent at Rs,4,250 p.m. The accommodation in occupation of the appellant is almost the same which these persons, namely, Mehboob Ali (P.W.2), and Aziz Ahmad Khan (P.W.3) possess. Nothing is brought on record to show that the rents of adjoining flats disclosed in para. No,3 of the application filed under section 8(1) of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, are not correctly mentioned.
11. Shaikh Azhar Mehmood (P.W.1) has also testified about the rise in cost of construction and repair charges. Para. No,13 of the affidavit-in-evidence of the respondent is self-explanatory. The appellant has also admitted this position in clear terms in his cross-examination.
12. Likewise there is evidence of increase in property taxes. Paras. 14 and 15 of the affidavit-in- evidence filed by the respondent relate to this increase which is also proved from the challans (Exh.7) and (Exh.8).
13. The appellant has tried to side-track the main issue by raising the plea of repairs carried out by him which is not relevant to the application filed for the determination of fair rent. I may usefully borrow some important observations made by this Court in the case of Amanullah Khan v. Mehar Ellahi and 14 others, reported in 1992 CLC 739, wherein it was remarked:-- "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 cost of construction and maintenance has increased tremendously and there can he no two opinions about it."
14. Since the learned Rent Controller had considered all the material factors while fixing the rent the observations made in Banarsi Silk Cloth Museum v. Mst. Amna Bai, reported in 1986 CLC 1570 and Abdul Hamid v. Abdul Ghani, reported in 1992 M LD 1588, are not pertinent to this case.
15. Thus, from whatever point of view the matter may be looked at, the appellant has got no case. It appears that he being an old tenant considers himself to be a privileged tenant, although the law makes no distinctions between an old tenant and a new tenant. The benefits under the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, are to be extended to those who discharge their own obligations as tenants and one of the main obligations is the payment of proper rent within stipulated time, which should not be paid like charity.
16. In the result the appeal fails and is dismissed with costs. The appellant is, however, allowed three months' time to pay the difference of rent to respondent, if not paid earlier.