1989 PLP 1440 (MLD)

SALEEM AKHTAR, J.‑‑The petitioners are tenants of shops hearing No. G/6 and G/7 situated on plot No. MR‑1 /129 Marriot Road, Karachi. In this building there are seven shops facing this road. The respondent No. 4 issued notice dated 10‑5‑1982 for reassessment to petitioners and proposed to increase the rent from Rs. 89.88 per month to Rs. 1,011 per month. The petitioners filed objection before the respondent No. 4 who by order dated 25‑8‑1988 fixed the rent at Rs. 400 per month with effect from 1‑1‑1982. The petitioners filed appeal which was dismissed. The Revision Application filed by the petitioners was also dismissed. The respondent No. 4 has filed counter‑affidavit in which it has been stated that proper notice according to law was served on the petitioners. The fixation of rent is fair and reasonable, keeping in view the condition, location of the shops and also the prevalent market rental value in the area. Mr. Rashiduddin, the learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the issuance of notice was merely a formality and the increase is unreasonable and unjust as shops of smaller area in the same building have been assessed at lower rate. The authority of respondent No. 4 to reassess the rent cannot be denied. He has served a notice proposing the rent at Rs. 1,011 per month and invited objection which was filed by the petitioner. After hearing the petitioner the rent was assessed at Rs. 400 per month. The learned counsel for the respondent has pointed out that considering the condition and location of the shops the rent was fixed according to prevalent rental value. The petitioners are in possession of two shops facing Marriot Road which is the nerve center of business in Karachi. The area of these shops is 417 square feet and as stated by the respondents in their comments that the rent could not be reassessed during 1970‑71 and 1977‑78 due to pending litigation before the civil Court. Therefore the petitioners taking advantage of the litigation were paying rent at an old rate which would have been reassessed twice but could not be done. In the petition, the area of other shops in the building facing Marriot Road and their rent has been stated and it has been contended that the rent of shops which are larger in area is much less than the rent assessed for the petitioner's shops. It may be true but the fact remains that there are other facts', relevant for fixing the rent including the condition of the shops and the last reassessment of rent made by the respondents: Without going into the disputed question of fact suffice to say, the petitioners have an advantageous commercial location and have escaped reassessment twice. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that none of the respondents have applied their mind and have passed the order with predetermined notion. The respondent No. 4 while reassessing the rent had considered all the relevant facts and passed a sufficiently well reasoned order. The appellate order too is based on reasons and appreciation of relevant facts. The provisional order also mentions the ground for dismissal of the revision application. One of the grounds being that the revision application was barred by time. The learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to establish how these orders are without lawful authority. For the reasons stated above by a short order passed earlier the petition was dismissed. M.Y.H./S‑365/K Petition dismissed.