Dr. IQBAL MALIK Versus Mrs. YASMEEN KATCHI

1. This first rent appeal under Section 24 of the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963 is directed against the order dated 22nd May, 1985 of Additional Controller of Rents Clifton, Cantonment, Karachi.

2. The Rent Case No. 44 of 1984 was filed by tenant Mrs. Yasmeen Katchi under section 13 of the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act on the ground that appellant Dr. Iqbal Malik has cut off telephone connection which was being used by respondent in terms of the agreement. It is stated in the rent application that appellant also discontinued the supply of electricity and was harassing her. It is prayed that appellant be directed to restore Telephone No. 542090 to the respondent. The appellant in his written statement denied the allegations and stated that according to the lease agreement amenities do not include the telephone. It is also stated that telephone could not be let out to the tenant and that it is a Government property.

3. Before the Rent Controller appellant and respondent filed their affidavits‑in‑evidence and were cross‑examined. The contents of the affidavits‑in- evidence are same as given in the rent application and written statement.

4. I have heard Mr. Malik M. Saeed, Advocate for the appellant. It is contended by the learned counsel that respondent is not entitled to have the telephone and there was no such clause of agreement.

5. Mr. Muhammad Ibrahim Memon Advocate appearing for the respondent submitted that a telephone was being used by the respondent since last 4 years and bills were being paid by him regularly. It is only just to harass the respondent the amenity was disconnected by the appellant.

6. The relationship and the rate of rent is not disputed. The respondent had been using the Telephone No. 542090 since inception of tenancy in February, 1980 and bills were being paid directly to the Telephone Department. The telephone connection was disconnected at the directions of appellant. There was also dispute and there were allegations that appellant disconnected the electricity of the respondent and they got temporary connection from KESC. The lease agreement was signed by father of the appellant. Agreements dated 14th February, 1980 Ex. Ao‑I and dated Ist March, 1982 Ex Ao‑2 are on the record. In both the agreements it is stated that respondent has to pay directly to the authorities concerned the charges of Water Supply, Electricity, Gas and for the Telephone "which is provided by the lessor" and provide photostat copies of the paid bills to the lessor during the lease period. The appellant in the written statement has stated that Telephone No. 542090 cannot be let out to the tenant as it is a Government property and it was provided on doctors' priority basis. The Rent Controller has dealt with all aspects of the case in detail and discussed the evidence. He has also directed the appellant to refund/adjustment of Rs. 1,000 per. month w:c.f. May 1980, upto the time of the actual restoration of the telephone facility. This last para. of the order directing appellant to pay Rs. 1,000 per month is contrary to the provisions of law and para. is set aside. But his order about the restoration of the telephone facility in the disputed premises is proper one.

7. I dismiss the appeal and direct the appellant to restore the telephone facility which respondent was enjoying since 1980. With this observation the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.

8. H.B.T./I‑38/K Appeal dismissed.