1990 PLP 840 (MLD)

(iv) Whether the premises is being used for the purposes for which it was let out? (v) Whether the opponents have sub‑let the premises to other persons? (vi) What should be the order? Both the parties led both oral and documentary evidence in support of the stand taken by them. The Rent Controller after trial of the case did not agree that the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 did not apply to the present case as according to him the building in question was let out to the tenants for the purposes of running a Hotel and not that a Hotel was let out to them. The Rent Controller answered all the issues except Issue No.5 in the affirmative. On the basis of such findings by his judgment, dated 13th September, 1987 passed in renumbered Rent Case No.443 of 1985 allowed the application and directed the tenants to hand over the vacant possession of the premises to the applicants within 60 days of this judgment. Messrs Abdul Hamid Khan & Sons, the tenants of the premises in question being aggrieved by the judgment referred to in the preceding paragraph have filed this Appeal under section 21 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979.

3. Mr. S. Azizul Hassan, the Advocate appearing for the appellants contended that even before the premises was let out to the appellants it was being used as a Hotel under the name and style of "New Standard Hotel". The respondents had let out the said hotel to the appellants and they had in fact obtained possession of the hotel and purchased the furniture and the fittings from previous tenants who were already running a hotel and the appellants had specifically raised a plea to that effect in their paragraph (a) under the heading legal and other pleas in the written statement. The appellants had produced such receipts as Ext. 2/1 and Ext. 2/2 in support of their such contention. As the original documents were lost the appellants led secondary evidence and produced the copies of the same. Sufficient evidence was also produced by appellants to prove that they had tendered rent in accordance with law for the month of January, 1981 and onwards. The Rent Controller failed to appreciate such evidence. He further contended that the very agreement of tenancy indicated that "New Standard Hotel" was let out to them. This document was in fact produced by the respondents as ExtA/1. ExtA/1. proves beyond any doubt that in fact a Hotel was let out to the appellants and not the premises for running a Hotel. The Rent Controller under the circumstances will have no jurisdiction to deal with the case as it pertained to a hotel. He relied on case reported in PLD 1982 Kar. 532 to support his such contention.

4. Mr. K.A. Wahab, the Advocate appearing for the respondents in reply to the contentions raised by the Advocate for the appellants contended that "Hotel" is not defined in Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979 and therefore, definition of the term as given in section 2(g) of the Pakistan Hotels and Restaurants Act 1976 be adopted for the purposes of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979. The evidence led in the case does not bring the building in question within the definition of "Hotel" given in that Act and the provisions of the Ordinance will be attracted particularly when the averments in the application and admission the written statement filed by the appellants indicates that the premises in question were let out for the purpose of running a Hotel. In view of above the provisions of Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 would have application in the case. To support his contentions he had relied on cases reported in 1987 CLC 447; PLD 1983 Lab. 674 and 1986 CLC 632.

5. Both the learned Advocates appearing for the parties however agreed that the only important point that needs to be decided by this appeal is whether the premises in question were let out for the purposes of carrying on business of a Hotel or actually Hotel was let out. In the former case the decision referred to by Mr. KA. Wahab, the Advocate for the respondent would be applicable and the Rent Controller acting under the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 would be competent to decide the case. While in the latter case it will be beyond his scope. According to them in case it is held that "Hotel" was let out the Sindh Rented Premises, Ordinance, 1979 will have not application to the case and decision on other points will not be necessary.

6. The Rent Controller had considered such aspect of the case as is mentioned in the preceding paragraph under Issue No.1, whether the application is maintainable in law being in respect of Hotel Premises? He considered the admission of appellants made in paragraph 1 of the written statement in answer to averments made in paragraph 2 of the Rent Application together with Ext.0/5 to be sufficient evidence to answer the said issue in the affirmative. Paragraph 2 of the rent application is reproduced below: "

2. That the applicant let out the upper floors of the said building to the opponents under a 'written agreement dated 26‑1‑1948 for purposes of running Hotel in the name of "New Standard Hotel."

7. The appellants in their reply to the above paragraph made the following statement in para 1 of their written statement; "

1. That the contents of para. 1 to 3 of the application are not denied. It is submitted that the `premises' was taken by the father of this opponent from the applicants for purposes of running a Hotel in the name and style of New Standard Hotel in the year 1948 and since then the said hotel is being run by the deceased father during his life and thereafter the opponent his son."

8. The appellants further in their written statement under the heading "legal and further pleas" under para (a) of the written statement stated as under; "(a) The application as framed is not maintainable under law since the premises according to applicants' own showing is a `hotel' and the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, section 2(h) has specifically excluded the same from the domain and jurisdiction of Rent Laws. According to the latest case reported on this point in PLD 1982 Kar. at page 582 it has been specifically held and laid down that `hotel' does not come within definition of the premises for the purposes of launching ejectment proceedings against the said establishment."

9. In order to discharge their burden to prove that the building in question was let out for the purpose of running a Hotel the respondents/landlords examined witness Manzoor Ali one of their partners who produced original document ExtA/1 executed on 26th January, 1948 by the appellants in favour of the respondents giving an undertaking to abide by certain terms of tenancy mentioned therein. This document has been referred to as a "written agreement" in paragraph 2 of the rent application. At the top of this document "New Standard Hotel Prop: Abdul Hamid Khan & Sons" has been typed while the rest of the document is on a printed form. In the very opening para of this document the building in question has been described as being known as "New Standard Hotel". this is the document which was admittedly executed by the tenants in favour of the landlords who actually produced it in support of their application for ejectment. This document itself clearly establishes that the premises were already known as "New Standard Hotel" which was let out to the appellants. The Rent Controller in his order has conveniently skipped over such a document produced in evidence while deciding the case. He felt satisfied on the basis of certain averments made by the parties in their pleadings and considered para 2 of the application and para 1 of the written statement reproduced hereinabove and recorded his findings. He sought corroboration from the certificate of Registration Ext. 0/5 produced by witness Mohammad Ali who was working as Manager of the New Standard Hotel since 1948 and was examined on behalf of the appellants in the case. Ext. 0/5 as stated above is a certificate of Registration and was issued by the Controller of Hotels and Lodging Homes Karachi on 12th February, 1951. The Rent Controller therefore held that the premises for the first time was used as a hotel since the date of registration. He however lost site of the fact that the Certificate was issued under the Karachi Hotels and Lodging Homes (Control) Act 1950. It was only after such Act was enacted that registration certificate was required to be taken. This certificate thus cannot be treated as evidence that the appellants for the first time commenced their business of running a hotel on the basis of such certificate. The Rent Controller also read paragraph 1 of the written statement in isolation although the appellants had under the heading of "Legal and further pleas" in their para (a) specifically stated that the premises were let out to them as a hotel and the provisions of Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 had no application to their case. He omitted to consider the latter paragraph. In every case pleadings are required to be read and interpreted as a whole. Part of pleadings cannot be taken out from the entire context and interpreted independently. The Rent Controller in the present case failed to consider the scope of the entire pleadings of the appellants in the case.

10. Mr. KA. Wahab, Advocate appearing for the respondents also contended that in spite of the fact that the premises in question which was described as a hotel vide ExtA/1 the premises do not come within the meaning of Hotel. According to him term `hotel' has been defined by Pakistan Hotels and Restaurants Act, 1976 and the meaning to that expression should be considered for the purpose of its meaning referred to in section 2(h) of Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, is 1979. The definition given in section 2(g) of the Pakistan Hotels and Restaurants Act, 1976 is reproduced below; "(g)" Hotel" means a lodging or boarding and lodging establishment with a minimum of ten letable bed rooms provided for tourists on monetary consideration which conforms to any of the prescribed minimum criteria but does not include‑‑ (i) a home or hostel which is exclusively or mainly used for the aged or invalid persons or students and is run by or under the control of a charitable or educational institution; or (ii) any rest house, hostel or circuit house exclusively meant for visiting Government officials or officials of other organisations though run on a commercial basis." According to him only two rooms are fitted with beds that can be let out as bed rooms while the remaining rooms are let out to certain tenants who are using the same as their offices. As the building does not have ten letable rooms it cannot be treated to be a hotel and the case taken out of the ambit of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979. The definition of term `hotel' as given in the Pakistan Hotels and Restaurants Act, 1976 is relevant for the purposes of that Act only and cannot be applied for the purposes of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance,' 1979. In absence of definition of such term in the Ordinance ordinary dictionary meaning of the term will he taken into consideration for the purposes of cases under the said Ordinance. A "Hotel" according to its meaning given in the Chambers 20th Century Dictionary, New Edition means a house for accommodation of strangers and inn. The meaning of "hotel" given in Ballentines Law Dictionary means "a word usually considered synonymous with inn". A house which is held out to the public by the proprietor as a place where transient persons who come in a fit condition will be received and entertained as guests for compensation." While `Hotel' according to Black's Law Dictionary means "an inn; a public house or tavern; a house which is held out to well‑behaved members of the travelling public who are willing to pay reasonable rates for accommodation as a place where they will be received and entertained as guests for compensation and will be furnished with food, drink and lodging and everything which they have occasion for while on their way." It will be thus seen that no particular number of bed rooms is required for the purposes of determining whether a particular building is a `Hotel' or other building.

11. On the basis of evidence brought on record it is evident that the premises in question before it was actually let out to the appellants was being used as a I Hotel. The so‑called written agreement Ext.A/1 itself described the premises as the "New Standard Hotel". Ext.A/1 is the admitted document that binds the parties under certain terms and conditions regulating tenancy of the building in dispute. This document as mentioned above describes it as New Standard Hotel", such evidence by itself is sufficient to hold that hotel was let out to the appellants and it becomes irrelevant to find out the meaning of term `hotel' for the purposes of this case. The provisions of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 in view of above will have no application. For the foregoing reasons the order of the IInd Rent Controller Karachi (South) passed in Rent Case No. 443 of 1985 on 13‑4‑1987 is set aside. The rent application filed by the respondents is dismissed and the appeal is accepted with no order as to costs. H.B.T./A‑718/K Appeal accepted.