1. JUDGMENT M. HUSSAIN ADIL KHATRI, J. - This appeal is directed against order dated 15.4.1990. Passed by the Vth Senior Civil Judge & Rem. Controller. Karachi (East). Whereby the eviction application filed by the appellant against the respondent on the ground of non-payment of water, conservancy and beterment taxes for the years 1984-855 to 1986-87 was dismissed The tenancy between the parties was created under agreement dated 13.3.1972. Relevant covenants are, reproduced below:- "That the lessee will pay a monthly rent of Rs.210/-in advance before ' the 3rd of each English Calendar month, which is inclusive ol water and conservancy charges."
2. "3. The lessee is entirely responsible to pay the electricity charges to KESC Ltd. Incurred during the lease period direct to the -supplier without causing any inconvenience to the lessor."
3. "All other taxes (such as urban property tax, K.M.C, taxes etc) on the said property will be borne by lessor."
4. The above stipulations do not provide that the respondent would be liable to pay writer and conservancy charges and betterment tax. On the contrary, it is stated this the rent of Rs.210/- is inclusive of water and conservancy charges and all oilier taxes including urban properly lax is to be borne by the lessor. Betterment tax is levied under the Sindh Urban Immovable Properly Tax Act.
5. 1959 and. Therefore, the said tax is an urban property tax. Contrary to the above, the appellant sought eviction of the respondent on the plea that the respondent by an undertaking executed by him on 15.12.1983 had agreed to pay the said charges and the tax. The respondent denied that he had signed or executed the said undertaking.
6. The parties entered the issue.
7. The appellant examined her attorney, who produced the above undertaking, but admitted that it was not signed in his presence. One Mubashirullah Khan, claiming to be colleague of appellant's husband filed his affidavit in evidence, it is stilted in the affidavit that he had finalized a settlement with the respondent in respect of water and conservancy charges and betterment tax. The respondent agreed and signed undertaking in his presence for delivery to appellant's attorney. He did not disclose as to who had written the said undertaking. The respondent iled his affidavit in consonance with his written statement. He was not confronted with the said undertaking. '
8. The learned Rent Controller on appraisal of the evidence disbelieved the version of the appellant with regard to the execution of the undertaking by the respondent.
9. The signature on the said document does not tally with the admitted signatures of-the respondent available on record. No. question wats put to the respondent with regard to the alleged settlement with the said Mubashirullah Khan, The said undertaking described by the appellant as agreement is not signed by any attestation witness.
10. There is thus no justification to interfere with the finding of learned Rent Controller in this regard.
11. Mr. Namazie, learned advocate for the appellant contended that the term "rein", as defined in section 2(i) of the Ordinance, includes water charges, electricity charges and such other charges which are payable by the tenant but arc unpaid and on such reading of the definition he has contended that on promulgation of the Ordinance it was the statutory liability of the tenant to pay the above charges in addition to the rent agreed. 1 do not find myself in agreement with the submission of the learned counsel.
12. Section 2(i) reads as under:- "Rent" includes water charges, electricity charges and such other.
13. Charges which are payable by the tenant but are unpaid".
14. The plain reading of the above definition shows that if the tenant had agreed to pay. Water charges, electricity charges and such other charges, in that eventuality they shall' be treated to be included in the rent payable. The plain language of the above definition does not in any manner cast any statutory liability on the tenant for payment of the said or other charges in absence of any agreement to the said effect. In the repealed Sindh Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance. 1959 (Ordinance VI of 1950) thereinafter referred to as the repealed Ordinance), the term 'rent' was pot defined but. However, in the Explanation clause to section 13 (2) (ii). It was provided that where the waiter charges or electricity charges or both are payable by the tenant to the landlord, such charges shall be deemed rent. While replacing the late Ordinance the above purpose has been achieved by definition of the term rent provided in the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979.
15. The definition of the term 'rent' came up for consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN PATEL Vs. HABIB WALI MUHAMMAD ETC. (PLD 1981 SC-1). Their Lordships on consideration of section 105 of the Transfer of Property Act and the above provisions of the late Ordinance concluded as under:- "...... It is evident that it includes not only the money agreed to be paid but includes even services or other things to be rendered by the tenant to the landlord. In other words, according to this definition, whatever the tenant agrees or undertakes to render to the landlord in consideration of the enjoyment of his property, whatever it may be or by whatever name it may be called, would, be included in the term 'rent'. As such if the tenant agrees to pay any part of the taxes to the landlord in addition to or in lieu of the substantive rent, that additional payment would also be included in the rent due from the tenant."
16. The definition of rent as given in the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance. 1979 is also to be construed in the same manner as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Muhammad Hussain Patel (supra).
17. I. Therefore, find no substance in the appeal which is dismissed hereby.