' ABDUL QADEER CHAUDHRY, J.---These appeals are directed against the judgment of the High Court of Sindh, Karachi, dated 2-5-1993.
2. The brief facts of these appeals are that the appellants are tenants of Flats situated in State Life Building, Abdullah Haroon Road, Karachi at the rate of Rs,146 and Rs,100 per month, respectively.
Two applications under section 8 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, were filed by the respondent-landlord against the appellants for fixation of fair rent. The rent claimed by the respondent was Rs,1,200 per month plus electric and gas charges w,e,f. The date of filing of the rent applications. The applications were contested by the appellants. Both the parties produced the evidence. The learned Rent Controller fixed the fair rent of each flat at the rate of Rs,500 per month w,e,f. 31-3-1992. The respondent filed appeals against the order of the Rent Controller. The learned Judge in Chambers enhanced the rent of each flat from Rs,500 to Rs,800 per month, to be payable from the date of the filing of the applications. Six months' time was allowed to the appellants to make necessary adjustments.
3. Before us the appellants have not challenged the fixation of fair rent at the rate of Rs,800 per month. Their only grievance is that the fair rent should have been fixed from the date of order, as directed by the Rent Controller.
4. Leave was granted to consider the following questions:-- "(i) Whether the impugned judgment of the High Court is in consonance with the provision of section 8 of the Ordinance.
(ii) Whether the learned Judge in Chambers was justified in enhancing the rate of rent from Rs,500 to Rs,800 per month with retrospective effect i,e. From the date of the application and not from the date of the order as was ordered by the learned Rent Controller."
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Section 8 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, reads as under:-- "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 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."
' The Rent applications were filed on 18-8-1982 and 1-8-1982, respectively, in two cases. The order of the Rent Controller in respect of C.A. No, 694/93 was passed on 25-9-1991 and in respect of C.A. No, 695/93 was passed on 31-3-1992. It took about 10 years to the Rent Controller for the disposal of the rent applications. It is stated by the learned counsel that the delay was not occasioned on account of the conduct of the parties, as the matter was transferred from one Court to another and it consumed sufficient time. A lengthy inquiry is not conducted in such matters. Even in the present case the respondent filed the affidavits of four witnesses. Similarly, the appellants filed only their affidavits. The intention of the law is to dispose of the application under the Ordinance as quickly as possible. The 'grievance of the appellants is that heavy burden has been imposed upon them to pay the arrears of rent for about 10 years at the enhanced rate. There should be a fair approach in fixing the date for payment of fair rent. It may also be noted that according to section 9 of the Ordinance, where fair rent of any premises has been fixed, no further increase shall be effected unless a period of 3 years has elapsed from the date of such fixation. Unnecessary delay in disposal of applications would cause loss to the landlord as he could not claim rent at enhanced rate as provided under section 9 of the Ordinance.
6. In the present matters A.W.2 Akhtar was paying rent at the rate of Rs,800 per month. He was tenant of Flat No, 14 of Ilaco House situated in Saddar Karachi, since June 1981. A.W.3 H.M. Lateef was paying rent at the rate of Rs,800 per month from the date of occupation of the flat. He occupied the flat as tenant about 5/6 years before his cross-examination on 13-10-1987. It means he was the tenant of the landlord in the year 1981. The rent applications were filed in August 1982, therefore, before the institution of the rent applications these witnesses were paying rent at the rate of Rs,800 and 800 respectively. No date has been fixed for the payment of fair rent in section 8 of the Ordinance. In Punjab Rent Restriction Ordinance and N.-W.F.P. Rent Restriction Ordinance the fair rent fixed shall be payable by the tenant from the date to be fixed by the Controller not earlier than the date of filing of the application. A discretion has been vested on the Controller to fix the date for payment of fair rent keeping in view the circumstances of a particular case. The c fair rent is to be fixed keeping in view the factors mentioned in section 8 of the Ordinance.
7. The learned counsel for the appellants has referred to Ahmad Hussain v. Sherbanoo Alibhoy (PLD 1962 Dacca 112), but this authority does not provide guidelines, as in this case the High Court interpreted section 15 of the East Pakistan Premises Rent Control Act, which provides that if the rent which was being paid at the time of the application is decreased by the Controller, the standard rent fixed shall be payable from the month next after the date of application, unless for reasons to be recorded by the Controller he decides that such rent should operate from any earlier or later date. There was an express provision in the Act, therefore, this precedent is inapplicable. This Court in Civil Appeal No, 319 of 1994: PLD 1994 SC 725 (Khyber Insurance Company Limited v. Pakistan National Shipping Corporation) has observed as under:-- "However, it may be pointed out that the above-quoted section does not provide as to the date from which the tenant would be liable to pay fair rent determined by the Rent Controller. In other words, it does not provide that the fair rent will be payable from the date of application or from the date of order determining the fair rent. In this view of the matter, the Rent Controller is competent to order the payment of fair rent from the date of order. "
' But, it does not mean .That the Rent Controller cannot fix fair rent from the date of application.
Where the statute does not provide a date, he can fix the date for the payment of fair rent either from the date of application or from the date of order or even from the date in between the above two dates keeping in view the circumstances of that particular case. The Court in the above-noted Khyber Insurance Company's case further held:-- "In our view, the above power does not entitle the appellate Court to pass an order in favour of a respondent who had not filed an appeal against the Rent Controller's order."
We may, however, observe that in case the appeal is filed against the order fixing the fair rent, the Appellate Court is competent to fix a date for the payment of fair rent. In Miran Devi v. Birbal Dass (AIR 1977 SC 2191) it has been observed as under:-- "Although section 4 does not say as to which date the fair rent fixed has to come into force, ordinarily and generally it is to be from the date of the application. But there may be circumstances justifying the fixation of another date. Where the Rent Controller had upheld the agreed rate of rent Rs,175 P.M. But the District Judge fixed the fair rent at Rs,4.50 P.M. In his appellate order passed on January 16, 1959, it was held in the circumstances of this case that the date of the order of the District Judge would be an appropriate one for enforcement of the fair rent as fixed by him."
' In the case of Raja Ram v. Sham Lal and another (AIR 1954 Punjab 208) a Division Bench of the East Punjab High Court, while construing section 4 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, relating to the fixation of standard rent, has observed as under:-- "(5) Under the Punjab Act, too, the Rent Controller has the power to fix the date from which his order shall take effect but this date cannot be antecedent to the filing of the application. He can, however, fix subsequent date. He can even fix two separate dates as may well happen in a case where, certain improvements or additions to the premises have been made by the landlord. But it seems to me that if there is no direction fixing the date from which the standard rent shall take effect the standard rent becomes payable from the date of the application because that is the date on which the landlord or the tenant comes to Court and prays that his rights be determined. It is quite clear that the order passed by the Rent Controller is in the nature of a declaratory decree. It cannot be executed by itself and the landlord must file a separate suit for the recovery of the standard rent due to him."
' Keeping in view the observations made in the above-noted two Indian authorities, we do not find any error in the impugned judgment. On the basis of evidence it is undoubtedly clear that the rent of the similar premises prior to the institution of application was Rs,800. The High Court, therefore, was right in fixing the fair rent from the date of applications. The respondent could not move fresh application under section 9 of the Ordinance in view of delay in disposal of rent applications. As regards the difficulty of the appellants for deposit of rent for about 10 to 12 years, sufficient time may be granted to the tenant for deposit of arrears of rent. Even an order for payment in instalments can be passed to avoid the hardship, as a result of the act of the Court in consuming sufficient time in disposing of the rent applications. The appellants shall pay the arrears of rent in six (6) instalments within the period of 18 months.
8. These appeals are dismissed with the above observations with no order as to costs.