1. ' This judgment would dispose of the above two appeals arising out of an identical order passed by learned Rent Controller, Karachi-East, in Rent Case No,690/1990 and 691/1990 respectively allowing two separate applications under section 12 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 (hereinafter referred to as the Ordinance) moved by the respondent directing the appellant to carry out painting/whitewashing in respect of demised premises within two months failing which respondent was permitted to carry out the same as prayed by him and to produce the bills before the Controller for inspection and delivery to the appellant for his record.
2. ' Respondent is the tenant of the appellant in respect of office premises Nos.603 and 603-A, Noor Estate, Shahra-e-Faisal, Karachi, by virtue of an Agreement of Tenancy dated 7-6-1974 effective from 1st July, 1974, valid for one year. Since the appellant failed to carry out whitewash/painting/polishing in the premises and the condition of the tenanted premises was rendered deplorable and unhygienic, respondent on failing to receive a positive response from the appellant/landlord sent for M/s. M.A. Rehman, Contractor and Engineer who quoted the cost of whitewash/painting/polishing of the premises at Rs,3,000 and Rs,4,000 respectively. He thereafter invoked the jurisdiction of the Controller for a direction in this behalf.
3. ' Appellant contested the application of respondent, denying his liability to carry out the required work. He pleaded that the respondent had moved the application in order to build pressure and create harassm ent for him.
4. ' On behalf of respondent his attorney Jamshed Mustafa appeared in the witness-box while on behalf of appellant her husband and attorney Col. Humayun Mirza appeared in evidence.
5. ' Upon assessm ent of evidence and consideration of the estimates as well as the tenancy agreement, learned Controller allowed both the applications as stated above through identical order dated 26-5-1994, which has been impugned in these appeals.
6. ' At the hearing of the appeal on examination of record it transpired that according to terms of tenancy, appellant was responsible to carry out all major and structural repairs. Looking at the meagre amount sanctioned by the Controller towards the cost of repairs in the form of whitewash, etc., I called upon learned counsel for appellant to concede to the reasonable prayer of the respondent but he found himself unable to agree with this proposition. He was of the view that in view of the language employed in the Agreement of Tenancy it was for the respondent to carry out whitewash and miner repairs etc., which were never sought before. It is pertinent to point out that the tenure of the agreement of tenancy was one year from the date of commencement which expired long back. For the sake of convenience section 12 of the Ordinance may be reproduced as under:-- "(12) Repairs.--(1) Subject to the agreement, if the landlord fails to make such repairs or whitewashing as may be necessary to keep the premises in proper shape, the Controller may on application made to him by the tenant and after such inquiry as the Controller deems fit to make direct that such repairs or whitewashing may be made by the tenant and the cost thereof may be deducted from the rent payable to the landlord.
(2) Where any authority empowered by a law for the time being in force has required landlord to make such repairs within such period as may be specified by such authority and the landlord has made default in this behalf, such authority may require the tenant to make such repairs.
(3) Where the tenant has made the repairs as aforesaid the authority ordering the repairs shall, after due verification of the details of the expenditure incurred by the tenant, certify the cost of repairs and the tenant may thereupon deduct the amount so certified from the rent payable to the landlord."
7. Under the general law as well as section 12 of the Ordinance it is, thus, the responsibility of the landlord to carry out reasonable repairs, white-wash and painting, etc. To the premises which could not be denied on technical ground that the respondent had failed to prove the estimates of repairs obtained from M/s. M.A. Rehman. I am not impressed by this argument of the appellant's counsel as under the law and for regulating harmonious relationship between the landlord and tenant and protecting their interests in respect of rented premises. It is incumbent upon the landlord to keep the premises in neat and good condition and to carry out necessary repairs including whitewash and painting, etc. Instead of adopting a fair attitude, learned counsel for appellant referred to the judgment in the case of M/s. Kauser & Co. v. M/s. Universal Insurance Company (Pvt.) Limited (1991 M LD 1774). In this case, the view taken was that concept of repairs is to be subordinated to the terms of an agreement, if such are specific on the subject of repairs. In cases of that genus whatever is provided in the agreement as to repairs, shall have to prevail and would be required to be given effect. So much so that even the jurisdiction of the Controller under section 12 of the Ordinance relevant to making directions for necessary repairs would come to be regulated by a specific agreement on the subject if such be available and applicable in a given situation.
8. ' It would appear that in the present case agreement of tenancy between the parties in the first instance came to an end after a lapse of one year of the date of agreement of tenancy and secondly there is no condition in the agreement that tenant shall be responsible for carrying out whitewash, painting or polishing of the premises. In his own written statement appellant had taken the plea that the terms and conditions of the agreement had no legal bearing on his ownership rights. Be that as it may, the appellant is not absolved of carrying out reasonably minor repairs in order to keep the premises in a clean and decent shape. Admittedly, the rate of rent in respect of office premises is Rs,1,405 and in the face of this reasonable rent the amount sanctioned by the Controller for carrying out necessary repairs is neither unreasonable nor exorbitant. Needless to observe, Controller is the creation of the Ordinance and not supposed to deal with intricacies of evidence and to hold a full dress trial as to what would be the actual cost of repairs asked by the respondent. In the given circumstances, I am of the considered view that the amount required for necessary repairs in the context of inflated prices of material and wages of the labourers is too meagre and inadequate. It would appear that in the event of repairs being carried out, respondent may have to spend a reasonably fair amount from his own pocket as the permission of the Rent Controller is confined to a definite amount.
9. 'In the case of Arif Baig v. Syed Nasir Hussain Zaidi (1991 MLD 1708) it was held by a learned Judge of this Court that during the period when agreement of tenancy was in force, landlord was not obliged to carry out such minor repairs but after expiry of such agreement it was the obligation of landlord to carry out such repairs and whitewashing as were necessary to keep the premises in proper shape.
10. ' Scrutinizing the evidence led by the parties from every angle, I am of the considered view that the order passed by the learned Controller was just, fair and equitable in the circumstances which does not warrant any interference by this Court.
11. ' In the result, both the appeals are dismissed. Appellant is directed to carry out the required repairs within a period of 30 days failing which the respondent would be at liberty to carry out the repairs in terms of the order passed by learned Controller and adjust the amount towards rent due.