' The appellant filed an application before the learned Fourth Senior Civil Judge and Rent Controller, Karachi East under section 8 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance requesting for enhancement of rent for the premises situated on Plot No, 185-A, Block-2, P.E.C.H.S., Karachi measuring about 600 Square Yards which were in possession of the respondent. Admittedly, the respondent had been paying only Rs,520 per month to the appellant since 1983. The appellant claimed that the rent should be enhanced to Rs,1,000 per month. The learned Controller has, however, fixed the rent for the premises at Rs,700 per month which became effective from the date of filing of the said application.
2. Mr. Nisarally, learned counsel for the appellant has assailed the said order mainly on the ground that the learned Controller after having relied upon the evidence produced on behalf of the appellant which showed that the rent of similar premises in the same building was Rs,1,000, had no jurisdiction for enhancing the rent to Rs,700 per month and, therefore, the learned Controller, according to the learned counsel, has acted arbitrarily while fixing the fair rent.
3. It is pertinent to refer to the observations made by the learned Controller in this regard in the impugned order:-- "Furthermore, opponent himself admitted that the rent of premises situated in the same building where the demised premises is situated is Rs,1,000 per month. Furthermore applicant side has filed the lease agreement of properties situated in the locality, these agreements show that rate of rent is much higher in the locality and opponent side has not challenged these documents, but challenged the production of photo copies of these lease agreements on the ground that these documents could be produced if allowed under Qanun-e-Shahadat but provisions of Qanun-e- Shahadat are not applicable in rent cases. This plea of opponent has no force because provision of Qanun-eShahadat are applicable to the rent proceeding and reliance is made on 1990 MLD Karachi page 1711. Furthermore, opponent side has not challenged that there is rise in the cost of construction and repairing charges but they have taken plea that they have incurred a huge amount on the repairing/construction of the demise premises.
' It is an admitted position that since 1983 when lastly the rent was increased by the previous landlord there is great increase in the cost of construction and also increase in the taxes...."
4. The above observations, no doubt, indicate that after agreeing with the appellant's contention that rent in the same building for similar premises was being paid by some other tenants at the rate of Rs,1,000 per month, no further reasons have been assigned by the learned Controller for fixing the rent of the premises only as Rs,700 per month. I am, therefore, inclined to agree with the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant that the learned Controller has acted arbitrarily in the matter.
5. Although learned counsel for the respondent has not resisted the appeal but he has objected to the observations made in the impugned order that the appellant would be entitled to increase in rent after every three years as such observations are not warranted by the provisions of section 8 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance. In view of the circumstances of the case, the appeal is accepted and the case is remanded to the learned Controller for B fresh disposal. Since evidence has already been recorded in the case, the learned Controller shall dispose of the case within one month after receiving the R&P of the case. The parties are left to bear their own costs.