P L D 1965 (W (PLP)

3. To understand the objection which was upheld by the learned Additional District Judge it would be necessary to refer to certain provisions relating to Rent Laws. The first of these is sub‑clause (6) of section 4 of the Ordinance of 1959 which reads: "4 (6).‑On and from such date as Government may, by notification, appoint in this behalf, the Controller shall not entertain any application under subsection (1) after the expiry of one hundred and twenty days. (a) from the said date where the building or rented land has been occupied by the tenant before the said date; and (b) from the date of the occupation of the building or rented land by the tenant, in any other case." The notification contemplated in subsection (6) was published on 19th December 1960, in the Gazette of West Pakistan dated 30th December 1960. It reads:‑ "In pursuance of subsection (6) of section 4 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, the Governor of West Pakistan is pleased to appoint the 1st January 1961, as the date for the purpose of the said subsection." Section 4 of the Ordinance which empowers the Controller to fix the fair rent provides a bar of limitation by subsection (6) which has been reproduced above. There are two starting points of the limitation of 120 days which has been provided by this subsection. The first starting point is the date mentioned in the notification itself and this applies to cases of such tenant who occupied the building or land before the date on which the noti fication under subsection (6) was issued. This is covered by sub‑clause (a) of subsection (6). The second starting point of A the limitation of 120 days is from the date of the occupation by the tenant, and this is contained in sub‑clause (b) of subsection (6). The meaning and purpose of these provisions is abundantly clear. Under subsection (6) the existing tenants or their landlords were permitted to apply for fixation of fair rent within 120 days of this notification. On the expiry of this period no further application for fixation of fair rent could be entertained, under section 4 of the Ordinance. However, in cases of tenancy which came into being after the date of the notification an application for fixation of fair rent could be made within 120 days from the date of the occupation.

4. Now, in the present case, it would be noticed that in the notification made on 19th December 1960 the date appointed is 1‑1‑1961, and the application for fixation of fair rent was filed by the present appellants on 11th October 1963. This application, therefore, would clearly appear to be barred by time having regard to the limitation of 120 days. However, it becomes necessary to refer to some other provisions to understand the contention of the appellants that their application was within time. Ordinance VI of 1959 was enacted on 23rd February 1959. This Ordinance, however, extended to all the urban areas of West Pakistan except the Federal Capital and the special areas. By section 21 of the Ordinance certain enactments were repealed but the Karachi Rent Restriction Act of 1953 was not amongst them. It could not be because this Ordinance did not extend to Karachi. It was only by Ordinance XXXVIII of 1962 that necessary amendment was made to the Ordinance of 1959 making it applicable to the areas covered by the Karachi Rent Restriction Act of 1953 except the cantonment areas thereof. By section 2 of this amending Ordinance the words "Federal Capital and" in subsection (2) of section 1 of the Ordinance of 1959 were omitted. By section 3 of the same Ordinance the Karachi Rent Restriction Act of 1953 was repealed except in so far as it applied to tile cantonment areas. The amendment came into force on 1st July 1963 by a notification as contemplated by subsection (2) of section 1.

5. The contention of the appellants before me was that the provisions of the Ordinance of 1959 having been made applicable to Karachi on 1st July 1963, they were entitled to apply for fixation of fair rent within 120 days from that date, that is 1st of July 1963. The argument was that in so far as this Ordinance came into force on 1st of July 1963, the notification dated 19th December 1960, issued in pursuance of subsection (6) of section 4 should be so read as to enable a tenant of a premises in Karachi to apply for fixation of fair rent within 120 days not from the date as mentioned in the notification but of the application of this Ordinance to Karachi. The contention is clearly untenable. Subsection r6) read with sub‑clause (a) thereof clearly fixes the limitation of 120 days as commencing from the date of the notification which is 19th December 1960. There can be no justification for reading into subsection (6) of section 4 another B starting point of limitation, namely 1st of July 1963 which is the date when the Ordinance was applied to Karachi. It follows that with reference to Karachi the power of the Controller to fix rent must be governed by the limitation contained in sub‑clause (b) of subsection (6), that is within 120 days from the date of occupation. Sub‑clause (a) of subsection (6) cannot obviously be applied to Karachi where the Ordinance came into force on 1st July 1963.

6. There is another aspect of the question. Section 4 of the Karachi Rent Restriction Act, which would be applicable to the appellants upon their assertion that they became tenants on 28th November 1958, itself provided a limitation of four months (equivalent to 120 days) from the date of first occupation within which an application for fixation of fair rent could be made to the Controller. By the first proviso to section 4 of the Karachi Rent Restriction Act the Controller was prohibited from entertaining any application which was made after four months of the first date of occupation. The appellants on their own showing have occupied the premises on 28‑11‑58 and their right to apply for fixation of fair rent became barred as from 28‑3‑59, and from that date the landlord would be entitled to receive the contractual rent. That being so, upon the repeal of the Karachi Rent Restriction Act, 1953 by the amending Ordinance XXXVIII of 1962 the consequences of section 4 of the West Pakistan General Clauses Act would follow. That section read with sub‑clause (c) thereof provides that upon the repeal of an enactment unless a different intention appears, the repeal shall not effect any right, privilege, obligation or liability acquired, accrued or incurred under any enactment so repealed. There is no different intention in the repealing Act because the Ordinance itself provides for a limitation of 120 days from the date of occupation. Therefore, the right of the landlord acquired under the Karachi Rent Restriction Act would not be affected in view of the provision in sub‑clause (c) of section 4 (1) of the General Clauses Act. Conversely the loss of the right of the tenant suffered under the Karachi Rent Restriction Act of 1953 could not be affected by the repeal of that Act. This is provided by sub‑clause (b) of section 4 (1).

7. I am, therefore, of the view that the learned A. D. J. was perfectly right in holding the application as barred by time. I accordingly dismiss this appeal summarily. K.B.A. Appeal dismissed.