1. ' This first rent appeal is directed against the order passed by Joint Civil Judge and F.C.M.
2. Hyderabad in Rent Case No, 150 of 1979, for ejectment of the appellant from the house bearing C.S. No,F/45-503 Ward 'C' Lajpat Road Hyderabad on the grounds that the appellant failed to pay the rent of the premises to the respondent and for personal use.
3. ' The brief' facts of the case leading to this appeal are that the respondent purchased the house in question from one Rais Rasool Bux on 2-1-1961 through a registered sale-deed. At the time of purchase of the said premises by the respondent one Abdul Aziz, husband of the appellant was the tenant of the previous owner in respect of the said house. The respondent through his Advocate on 27-7-1961 sent an intimation of the aforesaid change of ownership in writing by registered post A/D to the said tenant, Abdul Aziz, which was duly received by him. The said Abdul Aziz sent a reply dated 3-8-1961 through his Advocate to the respondent wherein he admitted himself to be the tenant of the previous owner Rais Rasool Bux but he disputed the rate of rent to be Rs,8 as against Rs,20 claimed in the respondent's notice. However, the appellant's late husband did not pay any rent to ,the respondent. After some time the said Abdul Aziz died leaving behind his widow, the appellant. No rent of the premises having been paid to the respondent either by the late Abdul Aziz or his legal representatives the appellant, the respondent was compelled to file a rent case against the appellant on 18-3-1979 on the point of default in payment of rent w.e.f, 27th July, 1961 which remained unpaid till the date of making the said ejectment application. The respondent also claimed ejectment on the ground of personal bona fide need.
4. ' In the written statement the appellant denied the relationship of landlord and tenant. She also denied that her late husband had ever been tenant of Rais Rasool Bux. As the appellant had denied the relationship of landlord and tenant between her and the respondent, the learned Rent Controller framed a preliminary issue on this point which was answered in the affirmative by his order dated 15-1-1980. Thereafter, both the parties were given opportunity to lead their further evidence on the point of default in payment of rent by the appellant and the personal bona fide need of the respondent for the house in question.' Accordingly both the parties led further evidence and the learned Rent Controller having decided both the issues in favour of the respondent, ordered ejectment of the appellant from the house in question within 2 months of the date of the order viz. 30th July, 1981.
5. ' The learned counsel for the appellant has, in the first instance, disputed the relationship of landlord and tenant. He submitted that no intimation of the change of ownership was given by the respondent to the appellant and as such the whole proceedings are bad in law. He also disputed the notice given by the respondent's advocate to the late husband of the appellant. The contention is entirely baseless. The intimation was duly given to the appellant's husband which was also replied by him through his advocate. A copy of the notice dated 27th July, 1961 alongwith registration receipt as well as reply dated 3-8-1961 of the late husband of the appellant is on the file of the lower Court. The issue of the relationship of landlord and tenant has been correctly decided by the lower Court by its separate order dated 15-1-1980. The requirement of section 13-A of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, therefore, stands duly complied with.
6. In the circumstances, no further notice was required by law to be given to the appellant because she is in occupation of the house in question as legal heir of the deceased Abdul Aziz. Notice under section 13-A is required to be given in a case where there is any change of ownership of the building in possession of the tenant and not in a case when there is a change in the tenancy because of the death of original tenant, which is a continuation of tenancy, as in the present case.
7. ' As regards default in payment of rent, there is no iota of evidence in the depositions made before the lower Court by the appellant that she or her late husband paid any rent to the respondent. The plea which she took before the lower Court was that the respondent did not send any person to receive rent from her.
8. The learned counsel for the appellant frankly conceded before me that the respondent did not pay any amount of rent prior to filing of the application. In view of this admission the order of the learned Rent Controller holding the appellant to be a wilful defaulter in un assailable.
9. ' The learned counsel for the appellant did not challenge before me the finding of the Rent Controller on the issue of personal bona fide requirement of the respondent. In fact, he did not address me on this point at all.
10. For the reasons discussed above, the order of the learned Rent Controller does not call for any interference. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.