1. This appeal under section 21 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance (hereinafter called the Ordinance) is directed against the judgment dated 3-9-1990 passed by learned Controller Karachi-South whereby the fair rent of the demised premises has been fixed at the rate of Rs.400 per room per month.
2. Appellant is the tenant of the respondent in respect of six rooms in the building known as "Press Chambers" I.
1. Chundrigar Road, Karachi at a total monthly rent of Rs.800.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant has seriously contended that the learned Controller was influenced by the judgment passed in F.R.A. Referred to above to which his client was not a party.
4. Be that as it may, the Controller has also taken into consideration the accommodation in possession of the appellant and all other attending circumstances warranting the increase and fixation of fair rent in, the circumstances of the case. He has evaluated the evidence thoroughly and arrived at a just and fair conclusion. There appears to be no reason to upset the finding recorded by the learned Controller which is supported by evidence on record and the case-law on the subject.
5. Learned counsel then vehemently urged that the Controller had failed to take into consideration all the four factors mentioned in section 8 of the Ordinance which serve as guideline for the purpose of fixation of fair rent of rented premsies. For the sake of advantage and convenience, section 8 of the Ordinance may be reproduced which reads as under: -- "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 circumstance 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or improvement in, any premises has been made or any tax or other public charge has been levied, enhanced, reduced or withdrawn in respect thereof, or any fixture such as lifts or electric or other fittings have been provided thereon subsequent to the determination of the fair rent of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:"
6. Learned counsel then relied upon the judgments in the case of Haroon Akhtar and 5 others v. Mst.
7. Khatoon Hadi (Head Note-A), reportec in 1981 CLC 1104, in the case of Banarsi Silk Cloth Museum v.
8. Mst. Amna Bai reported in 1986 CLC 1570, in the case of Ghulam Sarwar v. Allah Ditta and others reported in 1990 MLD 1901 and in the case of Muhammad Jamil v Muhammad Rahim (1987 CLC 176).
9. He also referred to an unreported judgment by a Single Bench of this Court in F.R.A. No. 813-89 delivered by my learned brother Syed Abdur. Rehman, J. (as he then was) in support of his contention that while fixing fair rent of the premises all the four grounds mentioned in section 8 of the Ordinance must co-exist and that the Controller is bound to consider all factors before fixation of the fair rent.
10. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent has relied upon unreported judgment in F.RA.
11. No. 275 of 1986 delivered by my learned brother Dr. Tanzilur Rehman, J. (as he then was) in which it was laid down that it is not at all necessary that all the four grounds mentioned in section 8 should be present in each and every case invariably. This -view was also taken in the case of Messrs Eastern Automobiles (Pvt.) Ltd., Karachi v. Pakistan National Shipping Corporation, Karachi, reported in PLD 1993 Karachi 9 and in the case of Mst. Aqila Khatoon v. Abu Bakar Khan, reported in PLD 1987 Karachi 541. A reference may also be made to the order in Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 180- K of 1988 passed by the Supreme Court of Pakistan in which the learned Controller had taken into consideration first two factors while fixing the fair rent of the premises. While dealing with the grievance raised by learned counsel for the appellant to the effect that remaining two grounds had not been taken into consideration the Supreme Court held that in case these elements also existed in this case it would have meant a further examination of the new taxes (if any) and/or the appreciation of the annual value of the property (if any) and if that would have been so, the rent might have been further increased.
12. Confronted with this legal proposition, learned counsel for the appellant then referred me to the judgment in the case of Abdul Hamid y. Abdul Ghani, reported in 1992 MLD 1588 which was again a judgment by a Single Judge of this Court who came to the conclusion that the order of Controller was not warranted by law as all four grounds or factors mentioned in section 8 of the Ordinance were not taken into consideration. I have gone through this judgment as well which refers to a decision of the Supreme Court of Pakistan in Civil Appeal No. 818-K and others of 1990 in the case of Mst. Munerra Kaleemuddin and others v. Muhammad Mahboob Alam and another. After a close examination of this judgment as well as the extract from the Supreme Court Judgment referred to above cited by the appellant's counsel, and the judgments referred in earlier paragraphs I am clear in my mind in holding that under the law it is not at all necessary that all the four grounds must co-exist in each and every case for fixation of fair rent. There may be cases in which there is no enhancement in the fixation of annual rental value by the Excise and Taxation Department or increase in taxes by a local body which would not be a ground for not fixing fair rent of the premises at the instance of one of the parties. The ratio of the decision of the Supreme Court lends support to this view which is even otherwise binding on this Court. In the present case learned Controller having taken into consideration the rent of similar rooms in the same building has arrived at a just and fair conclusion which cannot be interfered with in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction. Appeal is accordingly dismissed.