P L D 1968 Supreme Court 286 (PLP)

(4) "permitted increase" in relation to any premises means: (a) in a case of which clause (2) (a) (i) or clause (2) (a) (ii) applies: (i) twenty‑five per centum of the rent of the premises let on the first day of December 1941, or where they were not let on that date, the rent at which they were last let before that date or the rent referred to in sub‑clause (2) (a) (ii); and (ii) an amount not exceeding seven and a half per centum, (or in the case of any addition, improvement or alteration, made on or after the twentieth day of October 1959, either per centum) of the cost of any addition, improvement or alteration (not included in necessary repairs or repairs usually made to premises in the locality) made, at the landlord's expense, to or in the premises since the first day of December 1941, or as the case may be, since the date when the premises were last let before that date;" Sections 4 and 5 which provide for fixation of "fair rent" and allowing "permitted increase" in the rent are to the following effect:

4. The Controller :‑ (a) shall, in the case of premises in respect of which an application is made by the landlord or the tenant, on such application, and (b) may in the case of any other premises, of his own motion, determine, after making such enquiry as he deems fit, the fair rent in accordance with the provisions of this Act Provided that the Controller shall not :‑‑ (a) entertain any application, or (b) take any action on his own motion, for determining the fair rent after the lapse of a period of four months next after the date on which the premises are first occupied : Provided further that the foregoing proviso shall not have effect until the expiry of a period of four months from the commencement of this Act. 5. (1) If at any time after the fair rent of any premises has been determined in accordance with the provisions of this Act it appears to the Controller that subsequent to such determina tion some addition, improvement or alteration, not included in necessary repairs or repairs usually made to premises in the locality, has been made to the premises at the landlord's expense the Controller may, after snaking such inquiry as he thinks fit, re‑determine the fair rent of tile premises. (2) An increase in the fair rent may be allowed under sub section (1) with effect from any date not earlier than the date on which the addition, improvement or alteration was completed." The restriction on raising rent is contained in section 7 which inter alia lays down that‑ "Where the fair rent of any premises has been determined in accordance with this Act: (a) the landlord shall not claim and shall not be entitled to any rent in excess of the fair rent; (b) any agreement for the payment of rent in excess of the fair rent shall be null and void in respect of such excess and shall be construed as an agreement for the payment of the fair rent; (c) when the fair rent of any premises has been determined before the commencement of this Act in respect of any use or occupation of the premises:‑ (i) after the first day of April 1942, in the case of residential premises, or (ii) after the first day of October 1943, the case of premises other than residential premises, shall be refunded to the person by whom it was paid, or, at the option of such person, otherwise adjusted; (d) where the fair rent of any premises has been determined under this Act after that commencement of this Act, any sum paid in excess of the fair rent for the period commencing from the date of the application for we fixation of the fair rent shall be refunded to the person by whom it was paid or, at the option of such person, otherwise adjusted." It will thus be seen that the Act inter alia provided for an increase in rent at 7 1/2 % on the amount spent by landlord on the improvements made by him between 1941 and 9‑1‑1953, the date on which the Act came into force. The permitted increase for this period could be made by the landlord unilaterally there being no provision in the Act for applying to the Rent Controller for this purpose. However the increase was beyond the permit ted percentage the tenant could move the Rent Controller within four months of the commencement of the Act. Likewise if there was any dispute in this behalf the landlord could wi6hinj the same period move the Rent Controller. There is a lacuna in section 4 of the Act. Its scope is confined to permitted increase provided for in section 4 (a) (i) and to such improvements as were made within four months of the coming into force of the Act or within a period of four months next after the date on which the premises are first occupied. No provision is made in the section for permitted F increase at 7J Y, of the cost of any addition, improvement or alteration made at the landlord's expense to the premises after the aforesaid period. Similarly the application of section 5 is confined to cases where fair rent of any premises has already been determined in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Permitted increase in cases in which fair rent has not been fixed as in the instant case and the landlord has effected improvements, alterations or additions are not provided for. Since it could not be the intention of the Legislature to deprive the landlord of the permitted increase in such cases resort may be made to section 12 which empowers the Controller to determine fair rent in certain cases. Clause (a) provides :‑ "Where, by reason of any premises having been let at one time as a whole and at another time in parts or where a tenant has sublet or sublets a part of any premises let to him, or for any other reason, any difficulty arises in giving effect to this Act, or . . . . ." Appeal can be made to the category of cases in which "for any other reason, any difficulty arises in giving effect to this Act." As a general rule the words "any other reason" should be read as ejusdem generis to the preceding words in clause (a), but in the instant case the rule has, no application because the general words "for any other reason, any difficulty arises in giving effect to this Act" do not have a common genus or category with the cases mentioned in the preceding words. The general words "for any other reason . . . . . Act " must, therefore, be construed generally. In Maxwell the rule is stated as follows :‑ "If it can be seen from a wider inspection of the scope of the legislation that the general words, notwithstanding that they follow particular words, are nevertheless to be construed generally, effect must be given to the intention of the Legislature as gathered from the larger survey." The larger survey of the Karachi Rent Restriction Act VIII of 1953 has shown that sections 4 and 5 are not exhaustive of the conditions in which the "permitted increase" may be allowed by the Rent Controller. Section 12 of the Act must, therefore, be construed in such a manner that other cases in which the landlord is according to the definition of "permitted increase" in section 2 entitled to increase the rent are covered by the clause "or for any other reason, any difficulty arises in giving effect to this Act". On the view expressed above the order of the Rent Controller dated the 11th March 1957, permitting increase at 7 1/2 % of the' sum of Rs. 26,900 spent by the appellant on making improvement to the premises in the occupation of the respondents was with jurisdiction and not liable to be set aside in the present suit. The appeal is accordingly allowed and the judgment and decree passed by the trial Judge and maintained on appeal by the Court of District Judge, Karachi, and the High Court of West Pakistan, are set aside. In the circumstances we, however, make no order as to costs. A. H. Appeal allowed.