UNITED BANK LIMITED Versus A. KARIM JAFFARANI THROUGH LEGAL HEIRS

This judgment shall also deal with and dispose of FA.O. No.58 of 1991, both arising out of order, dated 15‑12‑1990, by which the learned District Judge, Lahore, acting as an Arbitrator under the Punjab Requisitioning of Immovable Property (Temporary Powers) Act, 1956, on the application of Muhammad Sharif (herein after referred to as the petitioner‑appellant) fixed the rent of the disputed building belonging to him, situated in Sant Nagar, Lahore, which is being used as a Girls School by the Education Department of the Provincial Government (hereinafter referred to as the respondent appellant) at the rate of Rs.1,000 per mensem and directed the latter to pay the same to the former w.e.f. 18‑7‑1977 after deducting the rent at the rate of Rs.150 per mensem as having been paid to him, and also to pay the rent at the same rate in future.

2. It is argued on behalf of the petitioner‑appellant that on the basis of evidence led by him, the learned District Judge, Lahore, himself assessed the rent of the disputed premises at the rate of Rs.16,00p per annum i.e. Rs.1,333 per mensem and then made it a round figure of Rs.1,300 per mensem but ultimately reduced it arbitrarily to Rs.1,000 per mensem on the ground that he himself had demanded the fixation of rent at this rate. According to the learned counsel, the building in question is situated in a well‑known locality of Lahore over an area of about six marlas, consisting of 5 rooms and a 'dcori' besides bathrooms and even the rent at the rate of Rs.1,333, as initially fixed by the learned arbitrator, was inadequate but the petitioner‑appellant was still ready to accept it in order to finish this controversy with his opponent. In support of his contention the learned counsel has referred to Province of Punjab through. Secretary Education v. Mahmood Begum through her L.Rs. PLD 1991 SC 1005 wherein the Supreme Court was pleased to criticise the conduct of the Provincial Government in not paying adequate rent to the owners of requisitioned property and for unnecessarily prolonging the litigation.

3. On the contrary, it is argued on behalf of the respondent‑appellant that the rented premises being an old building is in a bad shape and the learned arbitrator has exorbitantly assessed its monthly rent at Rs.1,000 p.m. and there was little justification for the petitioner‑appellant to demand enhanced rent when he himself in his application had felt contented if the rent had been fixed at the rate of Rs.1,000 per mensem. .

4. As per statement of Mian Anwar Ali Advocate, (P.W.1), he had taken the building in question on rent from the petitioner‑appellant at the rate of Rs.500 per mensem in order to run a private school therein but abandoned it in the year, 1972 when it was nationalised by the Government. The building was formally requisitioned by the Government in the year 1977 on the payment of Rs.150 per mensem and since then till now the respondent‑appellant continues to be paid the rent at this rate. It was obviously inadequate and deserved to be substantially enhanced. In his statement before the arbitrator the petitioner appellant had indicated that the building could fetch a rent of Rs.1,500/Rs.1,600 per mensem. In his application moved to the arbitrator he had mentioned that the rent of the premises could, in no circumstance, be less than Rs.1,000 per mensem. It does not mean that he demanded the rent at this rate and to this extent the learned arbitrator seems to have taken an erroneous view. On the basis of evidence and for cogent reasons he had come to the conclusion that the rent of the demised premises was Rs.16,000 per annum i.e. Rs.1,333 per mensem and he had no justification first to make it a round figure of Rs.1,300 per mensem and then to reduce it to Rs.1,000 per mensem.

5. In view of the above, the appeal of the petitioner‑appellant (FA.O. No.58 of 1991) is, therefore, accepted and the impugned order is modified to the extent that the monthly rent of the premises in question shall be Rs.1,333 with effect from 18‑7-1977 and after deducting the amount already paid by the respondent‑appellant at the rate of Rs.150 per mensem, the arrears shall be paid by it to the petitioner‑appellant within a period of one month. In future so long as the respondent‑appellant uses the building for the purpose of running a school, it shall continue to pay to the petitioner‑appellant rent at the rate of Rs.1,333 per mensem.

6. As a result, the appeal of respondent‑appellant (FA.O. No.57 of 1991) is dismissed. Parties are, however, left to bear their own costs.

H.B.T./P‑11/L Order accordingly.