1990 PLP 187 (CLC)

Sher Zaman for Respondehts. Through this constitutional petition, the order of the Rent Controller dated 10‑5‑1986 and that of District Judge, Muzaffarabad, dated 17‑11‑1986, whereby under the former the rent of the shop belonging to respondents 1 and 2 situate in Muzaffarabad town and rented out to the petitioner, was flied @ Rs.300 per month, while under the latter, the appeal of the petitioner against the aforesaid former order was dismissed, have been called in question.

2. The brief facts giving rise to this petition are that respondents 1 and 2 rented out their shop situate in Muzaffarabad Town to Khalilur Rahman petitioner @ Rs. 75 p.m. The said respondents started making claim for the enhancement of the rent of the shop from Rs.75 to Rs.250 p.m., on which the petitioner moved an application before the Rent Controller, Muzaffarabad for the fixation of fair rent of the shop. The Rent Controller, after the trial of the application, fixed Rs.300 as rent of the shop vide his order dated 10‑5‑1986.

3. Feeling aggrieved by the above order of the Rent Controller, the petitioner filed an appeal against the same before the District Judge; the appellate authority of the Rent Controller, but was not successful as the same was dismissed vide his order dated 17‑11‑1986. Hence this writ petition.

4. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has contended that under subsection (4) of Section 4 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Rent Restriction Act, the maximum increase of rent payable by a tenant shall not be more than 25% of the rent already being paid by such tenant but in this case, the Rent Controller had increased the rent of the shop from Rs.75 to Rs.300 p.m. which increase of rent is 300%, thereby violating the above provision of law. ,

5. The learned Counsel for the respondents has no reply to the above contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner. The above provision of law cited by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is reproduced as under: "If the fair rent fixed under subsection (2) exceeds the rent being paid by the tenant on the date of the filing of the application under this Section, the maximum increase of rent payable by the tenant shall not be more than 25% of the rent already being paid by him.‑ From the perusal of the relevant provision of law reproduced above, it become quite clear that the Rent Controller had no authority to increase the rent of the shop in question more than 25% of the rent already being paid by the petitioner to the respondents 1 and

2. Thus, the maximum rent that could be fixed could not be more than Rs.94 p.m. as only 25% increase over the rent already being paid by the petitioner was permitted under the law. In this view of the matter, the order impugned in this writ petition is unlawful having been passed without jurisdiction and accordingly the‑same is declared to be unlawful and of no ‑legal effect to the extent it increases the rent of the shop already being paid by the petitioner more than 25% costs. AA:/373/H.C.A Petition accepted.