This First Rent Appeal under the 1979 Rent Ordinance has been filed by the appellant/tenant against the order dated 4-5-1980 passed by the Rent Controller, Hyderabad in Rent Case No. 170/1976 allowing the respondent's application under section 16(2) of the 1979 Ordinance and striking out defence of the appellant and directing him to put the respondent in possession of the house in question. On 17-3-1980 an order for deposit of rent was passed by the Controller whereby the tenant was direct to deposit an amount of Rs.3,300 as arrears for the period from September, 1974 to February, 1980 before 10-4-1980 and he was further directed to deposit monthly rent at the rate of Rs.50 in future regularly before 10th of each succeeding month. It is an admitted position that no rent was deposited by the appellant in compliance of the said order and the impugned order dated 4-5-1980 of the Rent Controller is based on the finding of the Controller that the appellant defaulted in compliance of the order dated 17-3-1980- for deposit of rent.
2. The only point raised before me by Mr. Chowhan, learned counsel for the appellant is that the appellant was a statutory tenant and as no notice under section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958 had been served upon him, the Rent Application filed by the respondent itself was incompetent and not maintainable, and a consequence of that is that all orders passed by the Rent Controller including the order for deposit of rent were also incompetent.
3. In this connection, reference may be made to the order dated 7-2-1980 of the Rent Controller, Hyderabad, which decided certain preliminary issues. These preliminary issues related to the service of notice under section 30 and whether it was necessary for the respondent to serve such a notice on the appellant. After the said preliminary issues had been framed parties were directed to lead evidence and evidence in fact was led by both parties on the said preliminary issues. By the said order dated 7-2-1980 the Rent Controller held on the preliminary issues that no notice under section 30 was required to be served on the appellant as he was not a statutory tenant having come into possession of the premises in question, much after December, 1958. Learned counsel for the appellant has taken me through the evidence recorded before the Rent Controller relating to these preliminary issues and on a perusal of same I fined that the Rent Controller bad, on the basis of the evidence adduced before him, come to the right conclusion that the appellant was not a statutory tenant and .Had come into possession of the premises much after December, 1958.
Learned counsel for the appellant further admitted that in evidence before the Rent Controller on the preliminary issues no document was produced by the appellant in support of his conten--tion that he was in possession of the premises from a date prior to December, 1958. If the appellant was a statutory tenant, he must have in his possession some document to show his possession from a date prior to December, 1958. If he had made even a single payment to the Custodian, he would have bad a receipt for the same in his possession. No such receipt was produced before the Rent Controller. Even before this Court no such receipt or any other document showing possession of the appellant prior to December, 1958 has been produced. Further in his deposition before the Rent Controller the appellant himself admitted that be had taken the premises on rent from the respondent and the respondent became the owner of the premises in question in 1961 or 1963. In any case, the respondent was not the owner of the premises in question prior to 1961. It is further admitted in para. 4 of the Written Statement filed by the appellant before the Rent Controller that the respondent bad enhanced the rent from Rs.30 to Rs.50 but in January, 1976 he agreed to reduce the rent to Rs.40 per month. The evidence adduced on behalf of the respondent on the other hand establishes that the respondent became the owner of the premises in 1961 and that thereafter the appellant was inducted in the premises by the respondent as a tenant. In the circumstances, I am of the view that the Rent Controller by his order dated 7-2-1980 had correctly come to the conclusion that the appellant was not a statutory tenant and that the respondent was not required to serve any notice under section 30 of the 1958 Act. As a consequence, the order dated 17-3-1980 for deposit of rent passed by the Rent. Controller is not liable to challenge as, apart from the defence relating to non-service of section 30 notice, no other point has been raised in support of the present appeal before this Court. Further then is an admitted non-compliance of the order dated 17-3-1180 for deposit of rent.
As a result I find that there is no merit in this First Rent Appeal which is dismissed and the order dated 4-5-1980 of the IV Extra Joint Civil Judge and Rent Controller Hyderabad, in Rent Application No. 170 of 1976 is maintained. The applicant , however is granted time till 28-2-1982 to vacate the premises.