' This appeal is directed against the order of Rent Controller Hyderabad directing the appellants to vacate the premises in dispute.
2. The respondent claims to be the owner of Shop No. C/80/2 Shandadpuri Para Hyderabad. He has stated that he had let out this shop to Ramzan Khan the ancestor of the appellants on 22-2-1968 at Rs.15 p.m. The title of the respondent remained under litigation before the Settlement authorities and was finally clarified in his favour on 12-6-1979. The appellants on clearance of title of the respondent agreed to pay him rent at Rs.50 p.m. But they did not pay any rent whatsoever at any one of the above two rates. Hence the respondents sent a notice to the appellants by registered post A/D calling upon them to pay the arrears of rent, but they have not paid any rent. The appellants contested the case and denied the ownership of the respondent. They have stated that the disputed premises were transferred to Qasim Khan and not to the respondent. They denied to have taken this premises on rent from the respondent. They have further alleged that since they are not the tenants of the respondent question of payment of rent does not arise.
3. The learned Controller on the basis of evidence led by the parties came to the conclusion that there was relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and the non-payment of rent have been admitted and therefore allowed ejectment as shown above.
4. I have heard Mr. Kishanchand advocate for appellant at length who has also taken me through the record of the case. The title of the respondent is now free from any doubt whatsoever. He has produced the order of Deputy Settlement Commissioner as well as the judgment of this Court and an extract from the City survey record mutating the property in his name. He has also produced the rent agreement Ex. 17 purported to have been executed by Ramzan Khan the father of the appellant. It is therefore quite clear that the respondents is transferee from the Settlement Department and the owner of the disputed premises. The rent agreement produced by respondent shows that Ramzan Khan had accepted the respondent as the landlord and therefore his heirs are also bound by the same. No doubt the appellants have denied that Ramzan had entered into any such agreement but satisfactory evidence appears to have been led about this rent agreement.
Apart from that even if it is assumed that this agreement was not executed by Ramzan Khan then also there exists statutory relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. As already pointed out by me it is admitted that the property in dispute has been transferred to the respondent by the Settlement department. It is also admitted position that the appellants and before them their father Ramzan Khan was in occupation of the A shop in question. As such the appellants automatically became the statutory tanants of the respondent in relation to the shop in question, as provided by Section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation)
Act 1958. A notice as required by section 30 was admittedly given by the respondent to the appellants. Mr. Kishanchand tried to attack this notice on the ground that the respondent had claimed excessive rent in this notice and that he had not informed the appellants about the fact that he was transferee of the property from the Settlement department. The latter contention of Mr. Kishanchand is factually incorrect. I have read the notice and find that the respondent had in very clear terms brought it to the notice of the appellants that the shop in question was transferred to him by the Settlement Department. So far as the former contention is concerned it is suffice to say that the fact that respondent had demanded excessive rent does not absolve the appellants from paying or tendering the rent which was legally due to the respondent from them. Reliance is placed in the case of Tahir All v. Masoodi Begum and 4 others reported in 1980 CLC 1332 it was observed by Zafar Hussain Mirza, J. (as he then was) to the following effect:- "Mr. Anis Ahmed, learned counsel appearing for the appellant first sought to impeach the validity of the notice under Section 30 on the ground that the rent was not specified in the notice. This contention has no merit as it is well settled that non-mention of the rate of rent or even demand of excessive rent does not have the effect of invalidating a notice under section 30. Reference in this behalf may be made to Ghulam Hussain v. Mohammad Afzal".
' Similar view has been taken by the Supreme Court in Ishrat Hussain v. Subedar reported in 1975 SCMR 19.
' In this view of the matter I do not find any merit in this appeal whatsoever. These are the reasons for which I had dismissed the appeal in limine by my short order dated 9-3-1987.