Clatnung that. He is owner of the property on Plot No. SR 7-41/3 at Cambell Street, Karachi, the appellant filed Rent Case No. 2022 of 1996, before the `.I??Ith Rent Controller, Karchi, South, for ejectment of the tenants to the property respondents in this appeal. Default in payment of rent was not a ground. The ejectment was sought on the grounds that the premises was required by this appellant for personal bona fide use and that the respondents had sublet the property and had impaired its value by making alterations.
2. The respondents did not dispute the relationship of landlord and tenant but asserted that the capacity of this landlord was of a rent collector only and he was not the owner of the property, and, therefore, he cannot seek ejectment on these grounds. Determining lack of title of the appellant to the property in dispute, the Rent Controller agreed that he was not entitled to seek ejectment on these grounds. He, therefore, dismissed the case filed by the appellant.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that since the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties was not disputed, an issue relating to ownership was irrelevant. He submitted that the respondents were tenants of the previous owner from whom the appellant purchased the property and the respondents are paying rent to the appellant. He referred to a letter of attornment issued by the previous owner to the respondent, calling upon him to pay rent to the present appellant. This letter may be a valid mode of conferring the status of the rent collector on the appellant, but is not relevant for the purpose of transfer of ownership to the appellant.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent relied upon the definition of 'Lanldord' given in section 2(f) of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, and contended that a landlord merely by virtue of his capacity as rent collector is not authorized to seek ejectment of a tenant on the ground of personal use. He submitted that findings on all other issues in this case depended upon the finding on issue regarding ownership of the appellant, and since the appellant is not owner of the property, other issues failed.
5. Relating to ownership of the property, copy of an agreement has been placed on record by the appellant. Mr. Farooqui pointed out that the agreement itself mentions that the leasehold rights in the property were granted by K.M.C. For 99 years to the original owner which expired on 1-8-1975 and the lease has not been renewed by the said lessor. Thus, the vendor itself not having the rights, could not transfer them to the appellant.
6. It is admitted that no sale-deed has been executed. Mr. Farooqui referred to the relevant provisions of Transfer of Property Act and the Registration Act that are to be complied with for a valid transfer of property. It is not claimed on behalf of the appellant that such compliance has been made. It is thus, established that the appellant has not yet acquired ownership of the property in dispute. For relevance of this fact here, the definition of 'landlord' will have to be adverted to. In the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, it is as under:- "2(f) 'Landlord means the owner of the premises and includes a person who is for the time being authorised or entitled to receive rent in respect of such premises."
7. A definition given in an enactment and law is either exhaustive or inexhaustive. When it is exhaustive, 'means' is used and when it is to be inexhaustive, the verb 'includes' is used. Exhaustive definition means that the term defined is what it has been defined for all purposes. Thus, an owner of the property is landlord for all purposes. In an inexhaustive definition, the term defined is by what it has been defined for some purpose or purposes. A rent collector is thus, landlord for some purposes, and they are that he can collect the rent and can also take necessary legal steps in case of default in payment of rent.
8. Since it could not be established in this case that the appellant is the landlord in his capacity as owner, and since default in payment of rent was not in issue, his rent case was liable to rejection.
9. Learned Advocate for the appellant has cited some case-law but only two of them are of binding nature. They are decisions in the cases of Muhammad Ismail and another v. Sh. Muhammad Munawar (1984 SCM R 27) and Mian Muhammad Saeed v. Muhammad Mansoor A.I Khan and others (1991 SCM R 1209). In the first cited case, the Supreme Court refused to interfere with the decision of the High Court that "it is appropriate that in appealable case the trial Court should decide all the issues to avoid remand. This, of course, is a guiding principle but it does not mean that all the cases decided on preliminary issues should necessarily be remanded. The other authority is distinguishable on facts.
10. As a result of these facts and reasons, the appeal is dismissed with costs.