NISAR AHMED Versus ZEENAT BIBI
1. These seven First Rent Appeals bearing Nos. F.R.As. 172 to 178 of 1989 have been filed by appellants Master Nisar Ahmed, Umar Daraz, Abdul Ghani, Mst. Noor Bai, Hikmatullah, Abdul Ghani and Muhammad Ibrahim against the orders, dated 22nd January, 1989 Senior Civil Judge and Rent Controller Karachi (South).
2. Facts are that Rent Cases were filed by respondents under section 8 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 for fixation of fair rent. The applications were allowed by the Rent Controller. The rent in six cases except Hoor Bai F.RA. No.175 of 1989 was enhanced from Rs.17 p.m. to Rs.120 p.m. in case of Hoor Bai from 16 to 60. The appellants are old tenants of flats Hanif Mansion/Azad Manzil on Plot 24, Sheet LR-8, Lawrence Road, opposite Zam Zam Hotel, Karachi. There is only one issue before the Rent Controller, the evidence has been led by the parties and finally Rent Controller passed the orders which are impugned.
3. When appeals came up for Katcha Peshi, I issued pre-admission notice to which Mr. Muhammad Saleh Memon appeared.
4. I have heard Mr. Shamim Ahmed. It is argued that appellants are old tenants and rent increased by the Rent Controller is arbitrary and not in accordance with law. It is argued that appellants are paying taxes and in these flats pugree is involved.
5. Mr. Muhammad Saleh Memon submitted that rent prevalent in them vicinity is much more that `what is fixed by the Rent Controller. It is argued that there is sufficient accommodation in three rooms flats in the building.
6. Before the Rent Controller in all the seven cases one Shajar Ali attorney of the respondent/landlady Mst. Zeenat Bibi and her husband was examined while all the appellants filed their affidavit-in-evidence in each case.
7. Shajar Ali in his evidence stated that building has been purchased by the respondent from High Court of Sind, Karachi under sale certificate dated 16-9-1985, a copy of which he produced as Ex.A-1 He has stated that appellants are tenants of the above building and after the purchase they were served with notice as required under section 18 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance. He has stated that on verification it was found that there were 17 cavy arrears of K.M.C. Tax, Water Tax, Excise Tax viz. property tax which comes to Rs.7,660 per annum and Excise and Taxation Department fixed the only rental value of the building of Rs.7,539 in the year 1968. The premises consists of three rooms; verandah, kitchen, bathroom, toilet and open space of the plot. It is stated that appellants are not paying rent as per rates prevalent in the vicinity, which is Rs.200 and Rs.350 per month. He has stated that respondent is entitled to pay Rs.450. On the other hand, the appellants stated that they arc old tenants over 40 years and respondent is not lawful owner and did not serve notice under section 18 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 properly. They have stated that they paid the taxes to certain departments since 1952 and rental value was fixed by the Excise and Taxation Department at Rs.1,587. They have denied the accommodation as stated by the respondent. They have stated that they are paying reasonable rent and rental value hardly at present comes to Rs.20 to 30 per month. They had paid huge amount to the landlady on account of advance pugree/goodwill at theme of acquiring the premises. The rate of rent is not disputed. Respondent' go the title of the building in auction and there is no such issue, in these circumstances there exists relationship. The Excise and Taxation Department maintained the rental value at the rate of Rs.7,539 per month for the entire building, in the year 1968. These are flats. The Rent Controller himself visited the site and has given area in the impugned order. It was also argued that Rent Controller is not competent to increase the rent more than 10% as provided under section 9(2) of the Surd Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979. The flats are situated on the main road and it cannot be said that the rent in the vicinity may be Rs.17 per month in these days. The Excise and Taxation Board Certificates about the rental value is of the year 1968 and there is perhaps no further assessment. There is increase in cost of construction nowadays and there is sufficient accommodation in the flats and Rent Controller had visited the premises and taken all points into consideration. I am of the view that the Rent Controller had rightly fixed the fair rent. This is the first time the rent is fixed under section 8 of the Ordinance, therefore, argument that provisions of section 9 will attract, can only be taken in case if previously fair rent was fixed by the Rent Controller. The case of Mst. Ikeel Khatoon v. Abu Bakar reported in P L J 1987 Kar. 54 is relevant. For the reasons stated above I am of the view that the orders of the Rent Controller are very fair. Since the identical points are involved in all the seven rent appeals and evidence is same, therefore, by this single order all the appeals are dismissed in limine.
8. M.Y.H./N-206/K
9. Appeals dismissed.