2016 PLD 730 SUPREME-COURT

Full text

COMBIND INVESTMENT (PVT.) LTD. VS WALI BHAI Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979--15 , Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979--2 , Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979--3 , Ss. 2(h), 3 & 15(2) (iii) (b)---Hotel premises---Applicability of Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979---Rent Controller, jurisdiction of---Premises let out to tenant for commercial/residential purposes---Tenant using the premises for running a hotel---Whether tenant wrong/unauthorized user of premises---Whether jurisdiction of Rent Controller ousted---Rented premises, in the present case, which was being unilaterally used by the tenant as a hotel, did not fall within the meaning of "hotel" as used in S.2(h) of Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979---Written lease agreements executed between the parties proved that at no point in time the demised premises was ever let out to the tenant as a "hotel"---Rented premises was let out for the purpose of business/residential use, however the subsequent change in its use for running a hotel by the tenant, that too unilaterally, would not take away the jurisdiction of the Rent Controller---Provisions of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 were thus duly applicable to the present case---Tenant had himself submitted to the jurisdiction of the Rent Controller by filing an application for deposit of rent before the Rent Controller---Tenant was, thus, estopped from his conduct to challenge the jurisdiction of the Rent Controller---[Per Faisal Arab, J: Tenant by pleading that rental premises on account of its use as a hotel was excluded from the provisions of Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 , was denying himself the protection of rent laws, and was relegating his status from a tenant to a mere licensee---Tenant had acquired interest in the premises on monthly rental basis in his capacity as tenant, thus his status could not be converted to that of a licensee---Only legal remedy to seek eviction of tenant was to file an eviction application under the provisions of Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979]---[Per Maqbool Baqar, J. (Minority view): Premises was leased out to the tenant for "business/residential' purposes---Running a hotel fell within the definition of a business---Premises, in question, was being constructed by its original owner as a hotel, but it could not be completed---At the time of its demise to the tenant, the premises consisted of an incomplete bare structure, and the current owner/landlord never objected to the construction by the tenant, rather allowed the tenant to continue to carry out construction to suit his requirements---Current owner had not claimed that the hotel was being run by the tenant in a clandestine manner---At no point in time, the original or current owner of the demised premises, objected to the hotel being housed and run in the demised premises---Fact that for about forty years, the owners of a fairly large four storied commercial building, situated on a major main road, in an important commercial area of a large city would not know of the same being used by the tenant for housing and running a hotel was wholly inconceivable---Premises was registered/mentioned as a hotel with the various government departments, institutions and the gas supply company, and 'Hotel Tax' was being paid in respect of the same---High Court had rightly held that since the demise premises was a hotel premises, neither the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 applied nor the Rent Controller had the jurisdiction to entertain and decide the ejectment proceedings in respect thereof]---Supreme Court held that Rent Controller had the jurisdiction to entertain and decide the ejectment proceedings in the present case---Eviction order passed by Rent Controller was restored accordingly.