CASE LAW

---S. 2(h)---Pakistan Hotels and Restaurants Act (LXXXI of 1976), S.2(g)---"Hotel"---Definition---Premises which had been utilized only for serving refreshments was not a "hotel"---To exclude the jurisdiction of Rent Controller the premises must be shown to have been let out as a "hotel"---Mere fact that premises had been converted into a hotel be tenant, though not initially let out as such, would not be sufficient to exclude the jurisdiction of Rent Controller in the matter ---where the question as to whether the premises were being run as a hotel by tenants had been determined by the Rent Controller upon evidence recorded by him and his findings, appeared to have been based on such enquiry, findings so arrived at by the Rent Controller being findings of fact, would prevail unless they were reversed in appeal---Such order passed by Rent Controller, thus, could not be construed as a nullity in law.[p. 783]A

Ref. 1999 S C M R 781

click here

---S. 2(i)---Electricity charges, non-payment of ---Effect---Electricity charges being included in definition of "rent" and tenant being liable to pay the same, default on his part would make him liable for ejectment for non-payment of such charges when default was clearly established by evidence before Rent Controller.

Ref. 1999S C M R 28

---S. 2(f)---Displacement Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958), S. 30--- Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)---"Landlord"---Definition---Landlord and tenant, relationship of---Transferees of big mansion---Relationship of landlord and tenant between such transferees and the occupants---Leave to appeal was granted by Supreme Court to consider contention that there was sufficient evidence available in the proceedings that the transferees were entitled to receive rent and were covered by the definition of landlord as contemplated in S.2(f) of Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979.

Ref. 1999 SCMR 348(a).

---Ss. 2(a) & 14---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185--- Ejectment of tenants from two amalgamated shops--- Two different tenants being in possession of such amalgamated shops, Rent Controller on consideration of equity, sliced away one shop each from two premises to be made over to landlady in satisfaction of her claim--- High Court maintained such findings--- Validity--- Word "building" occurring in S14, Singh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 has been used in the same sense as reflected in S.2(a) of the Ordinance; and unless there be any thing repugnant in the subject and context, would mean any building or part thereof, therefore, assumption would be that provision of S.14 of the Ordinance was calculated to direct itself to independent premises, or even entire building, as such, for eviction must be relatable to individual holdings alone---Benefit of S.14, Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance Premises Ordinance, 1979 would, thus, subject to context and exigencies of particular case, be confined to mere tenant-hold--- Even on such plane of reasoning, impugned orders of ejectment would not appear to have been misdirected for each of tenants was holding composite tenant-hold, consisting of two shops and all that Rent Controller and High Court did was to apportion burden of two tenants, thus, in effect confining order of eviction to area Concurrent findings of Courts below were based on extensive examination of evidence and conclusions were not only just and plausible but also lawful--- No interference was warranted in judgments of Courts below in circumstances.

Ref. 1998 S C M R 2114.

---S. 2(f)(h), (J)---"Landlord", "tenant" and "premises"

Ref. 1998 S C M R 2092(b)

---S. 2(f)(h), (j)---See Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979), S. 3(1).

Ref. 1998 S C M R 2092 (a) & (d).

---Ss. 2(f) & 15---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185---Leave to appeal was granted to consider, whether there was sufficient evidence available in ejectment case that landlords were entitled to receive rent and were covered by the definition of landlord as contemplated in S. 2 (f) Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979; whether tenant having disputed relationship and claimed title to property, it was for him to have such questions settled by Civil Court; whether plea of tenant that premises in question were purchased by him was not reflected in pleadings, and no issue was framed with regard to it in ejectment application, which could be concluded as permitted in relevant law; whether directions in impugned judgment given to landlords to obtain permanent transfer deed and to have properly demarcated premises in question, were outside the scope of ejectment proceedings as defined in Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979; and whether Provisional Transfer Order (P.T.O.) was not sufficient to entitle landlord to claim rent as contemplated under provisions of Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979;

1996 S C M R 1836.

---S. 2(h)---Nature of premises let out on rent---Question of fact---Tenant taking plea in High Court for the first time that premises were let out to him as a "hotel" and as such Rent Controller had no jurisdiction in the matter---Question as to whether premises was let out to tenant as a hotel or not being question of fact, same should have been pleaded in written statement by tenant if he wanted to oust jurisdiction of Rent Controller---Such plea could not have been raised for the first time before High Court---Even legal plea which was founder on factual plane, could not be raised for the first time before Appellate forum.

1996 S C M R 771.

---S2(h)---Premises let out as a "shop" by landlord to tenant---Tenant converting such premises into a "restaurant" without consent of landlord---Ejectment of tenant ordered by Rent Controller---Tenant for the first time taking up plea before High Court that subject-matter of ejectment application being a hotel, it was not covered by provision 2(h), Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979---High Court remanding case to Rent Controller with direction to record further evidence on the question of nature of premises and to decide the case afresh---Validity---Conversi9on of shop into a "restaurant" was proved and conceded by the tenant---Such conversion having been effected without permission of landlord, tenant was liable to eviction---Case was remanded to High Court for decision afresh on merits which found favour with Rent Controller.

Ref. 1995 S C M R 313(c).

---S. 2(h)---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)---Leave to appeal was granted to consider whether High Court was justified in holding that shops which were let out by landlord to tenant were excluded because there was a hotel therein in absence of any such plea in the written statement and/or in the absence of any such arguments before Rent Controller, and whether restaurant was excluded from the ambit of the Ordinance.

Ref. 1995 S C M R 313(a)

.

---Ss. 2(h) & 21---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)---Ejectment o9f tenant---High Court directing additional evidence to be recorded by Rent Controller on question whether premises in question was a hotel and Rent Controller had no jurisdiction to decide ejectment of tenant from such premises---Rent Controller, after recording additional evidence sending record thereof, to High Court---Additional evidence so recorded to Rent Controller for recording of evidence of evidence on the said question ---Validity---High Court after remitting case to Rent Controller for recording additional evidence and after having received record of such evidence, could not have remanded case for the same purpose---Petition for leave to appeal was converted into appeal and case was remanded to High Court for disposal of appeal afresh after taking into consideration additional evidence forwarded by Rent Controller in compliance of High Court Order.

---S. 2(i)---West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959), S. 13(2), Explain. (i)---Electricity charges, payment of ---Provision of S. 13(2)(ii),West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, postulates that where water charges or electric charges were payable by tenant to landlord, said charges were deemed to be rent for the purpose of default---Provision of S.2(i), Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, however, defines rent as to include water charges, electricity charges and such other charges which were payable by tenant but were not paid.

Ref. 1995 S C M R 323(c).

---S. 2(h)---"Premises"---Connotation---"Premises" means a building or land, let out on rent, but does not include 'hotel'.

1996 S C M R 771.

---Ss. 2(i) & 15---Payment of electric charges---Default---Proof---Essentials---Landlord's attorney in his cross-examination admitted the factum that tenant had been paying electric charges directly to Electricity Department and that at no point of time landlord demanded payment of same from the tenant---Tenant's averment on oath that she had been paying electric charges regularly whenever she received the bill from the Department also remained unrebutted---Concurrent findings of Courts below on question of default in payment of electric charges to the effect that tenant had committed default being based on misreading of evidence was set aside in circumstances.

Ref. 1995 S C M R 323.

---S. 2(i)---"Rent"---Definition---"Rent" includes water charges, electricity charges and such other charges which are payable by the tenant bur are unpaid---Liability to rent under the Ordinance being on tenant, he was liable to pay rent as defined under S. 2 (i) which included electricity charges.

Ref. 1994 S C M R 1900(c).

---S.2(a)---"Shop"---"Godown"---Definition---definition of "shop" does not cover a "godown" which has its own specific meaning.

Ref. 1992 S C M 2351(c).