1. ' ZIA PERWAZ, J.---This constitution petition is directed against the impugned judgment of First Additional District and Sessions Judge Karachi South in F.R.A. No,1294 of 2001 dated 6-3-2004, upheld the order of learned Xth Senior Civil Judge, Karachi South in Rent Case No,1730 of 1997 dated 24-12-1999.
2. ' Mr. Shehanshah Hussain, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that both the Courts below have held that the premises being that of a Hotel are not within the jurisdiction of Rent Controller. Contention of Mr. Shehanshah Hussain, learned counsel for the petitioner is that the actual use of the premises is the fact which determines the question of jurisdiction. The mere fact that a large building belongs to hotel in which activities of a hotel are confined to specific area while in the remaining area of the commercial building a number of tenements have been rented out on monthly rent not involving any hotel activities. These are matters to be considered on the basis of evidence on record. Mere fact that the premises is owned by a Company having the name of .Hotel would not attract the bar contained in section 2(h) of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979.
3. ' In support of his contention he has relied upon a judgment of this Court in F.R.A. No,356/1982 dated 31-1-1985 between the same parties.
4. ' Heard the learned counsel and perused the record.
5. ' The provisions requiring consideration is section 2(h) of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, which reads as follows:--
(h) "Premises" means a building or land, let out on rent, but does not include a hotel; Bare reading of the subsection shows that the jurisdiction is barred if the premises is a hotel.
6. According to shorter Oxford. English Dictionary the word 'hotel", inter alia, means "an Inn;, especially one of a superior kind", and the word "inn" according to the same dictionary inter alia, means "a dwelling place, habitation, lodging, a public house for the lodging and entertainment of travellers, wayfarers etc.". According to Black's. Law Dictionary "hotel" means as under:-- "Hotel is a building held out to the public as a place where all transient persons who come will be received and entertained as guests for compensation and it opens its facilities to the public as a whole rather than limited accessibility to a well defined private group."
7. ' In Stroud's Judicial Dictionary it is stated to be a place where lodging are let and where provisions are, to some extent, supplied.
8. ' In Hallsbury's Law of England the following statement has been made: "A hotel is an establishment held out by proprietor as offering foods, drinks and if so required sleeping accommodations, without special contract, to any traveller presenting himself who appears able and willing to pay a reasonable sum for the service and facilities provided and who is in a fit state to be received."
9. ' From the various definitions of the word "hotel" its ordinary grammatical meaning and as used in some of the statutes interpreted judicially the concept of hotel imports the idea of providing accommodation to travellers and guests. See PLD 1989 SC 294 (Zafar Ali v. Allah Bachayo), PLD 1987 Kar. 273 (Dur Muhammad and others v. Muhammad Qasim), 1983 CLC 723 (Allah Ditta and 2 others v. Walayat and others), 1990 M LD 840 (Abdul Hameed Khan and others v. Karimji Ebrahimji and others). Hotel is a building held out to the public as place where all transient persons who come will be received and entertained as guests for compensation and it opens its facilities to the public as a whole rather than limited accessibility to a well defined private group. See 2005 YLR 122 (Abdul Malid v. Muhammad Arshad and sons), 1995 SCM R 313 (Shafiq-ur-Rehman v. Haji Agha Hassan), 1996 SCM R 771 (Muhammad Anwar v. Jamaluddin).
10. ' The above meanings specifically convey that for purpose of the definition of hotel certain activities and functions associated with the operation of hotel should be involved in connection with the premises rented out.
11. ' In the instant case a large building is stated to be owned by Messrs Hotel Metropole, which is a limited company and the landlord however, the activities pertaining to the maintenance above are running of a hotel are confined to specific area, whereas, the landlord has rented out several tenements on monthly rent as in any commercial building which do not attract any activity associated or ancillary to that of a hotel. In this regard reference may be made to the earlier decision of this Court in judgment dated 31-1-1985 in F.R.A. No,356 of 1982, wherein it has been observed that the application was filed before the Rent Controller on the ground of default in payment of rent in respect of Room No,255 situated on the second floor of the building known as Metropole Hotel Club Raod, Karachi from 8-1-1980. The monthly rent in the application to be Rs,2000. In addition to monthly rent mentioned above it is alleged that respondent is also required to pay Rs,170 per month towards electricity charges which was subsequently raised to Rs,195 per month form November, 1980. Respondent did not appear before the Rent Controller and as such ex parte proceedings were taken against the respondent. The appellant submitted his ex parte proof on 10th November, 1981 in the form of affidavit sworn by one D.P. Patel the Executive Vice-President of the appellant along with the copy of the lease agreement which has been executed between the appellant and the respondent. The Rent Controller however, dismissed the application on the ground in view of the definition of premises given in section 2(h) of the Ordinance the room let out to the applicant being part of the hotel the application is not maintainable under the Ordinance.
12. The view taken by the Rent Controller is fully misconceived as mere fact that the building is described as hotel or it happened to be a hotel does not mean that the application in respect of the eviction of a person who is the lessee in respect of a premises in the hotel cannot be maintained. The application as framed does not show that the premises in occupation of the respondent is a part of the hotel. On the contrary to lease agreemen t executed between the parties clearly show that it was the case of a formal H lease agreement in respect of a portion of the building which is as Hotel Metropole Limited. The facts that the building was at one time a hotel or that it is described as hotel in the lease agreement does not take away the jurisdiction of the Rent Controller in so far there is a relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. The agreement dated 8-1-1980 executed between the appellant and respondent clearly creates relation of landlord and tenant between the parties and as such the Rent Controller had the jurisdiction to decide the dispute raised before him.
13. ' It is therefore the purpose of which the premises was let out that constitutes the criteria to define a premises as a hotel. The fact of ownership of a premises by a hotel, unless the activities are those ancillary to the operation of a hotel as in the case of shopping malls etc. Which makes some part of the hotel.
14. ' It appears that both the two Courts below ignored the view of this Court with particular reference to specific nature of occupancy as tenant.
15. ' Mere fact that the property is owned by hotel who is landlord would not attract the bar for the tenement to be dealt with as a hotel for purpose of section 2(h) of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979.
16. ' For the foregoing reasons the petition is allowed. Case was remanded to learned Rent Controller for decision of the ejectment application on merits on the basis of evidence already recorded.