2019 YLR 966 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Full text

PHARMACIE PLUS through Group Administration Head VS ABDUL LATIF Ss. 7, 8, 17 & 24--Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979), S. 8---eviction of tenant---Fair rent---Scope---Terms of agreement not in consonance with the prevalent law---Effect--- Enhancement/increase in monthly rent during/expiry of the tenancy---Scope---Question was as to whether law prohibited parties to re-determine the quantum of rent within three years, than the one agreed originally in the agreement---Respondent/ Landlord moved an application for the enhancement of rent along with eviction petition, which application was allowed by the Rent Controller in the light of two clauses incorporated in the agreement between the parties stipulating that rent of the rented premises would be increased @ 7% after every eleven months---Rent Controller subsequently struck off the defense of the tenant for non-compliance to deposit enhanced monthly rent and passed order for eviction of the tenant---Appellant/tenant contended that the term of the agreement, regarding enhancement of rent, was not in consonance with the law and he kept depositing rent without enhancing the rate, in the office of Rent Controller till the said office suddenly refused to receive the same---Landlord contended that the very agreement between the parties stipulated the enhancement of rent during and even at the expiry of the tenancy--- Validity---Section 7 of Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963 provided a remedy of increase by way of fair rent and further prohibited any increase once determined under S. 7, Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963---Parties, in the present case, had agreed for enhancement of rent in the existing rent by 7% within three years---Section 8 of Cantonments Rent Restriction Act,1963 provided that once rent was determined and fixed under S. 7, Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963 it would not be lawful, either with or without consent of a tenant, to increase the rent unless addition, improvement or alteration was made in the building other than by ordinary or usual repairs at the expense of landlord---Section 7(5), Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963 provided that when fair rent of the building had been fixed by the Rent Controller or where the rent of the building had been determined by an agreement between landlord and tenant, no further increase in the fair rent would be permissible , during the continuance of tenancy, within a period of three years from the date fixed by the Rent Controller or from the date of agreement---Addition, alteration and improvement could entitle the parties to re-negotiate the quantum of rent---Landlord had not claimed enhancement in rent on the basis of making some addition, alteration or improvement---Definition of "fair rent" under Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 was different than the one provided in Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963---Rent agreed mutually in an agreement was also deemed to be the fair rent within the meaning provided under S.7(5) of Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963---Held, enhancement in rent, in the present case, was made within three years of execution of agreement, contrary to S.7(5) & S. 8 of Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963, and no enhancement could be made unless the recourse to the provision regarding improvement/alteration was fulfilled---eviction petition also including ground of personal requirement---High Court, in view of said ground remanded the matter to Rent Controller for its disposal in accordance with law---Appeal was allowed accordingly.