1. ' This appeal under section 21 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, hereinafter called the Ordinance, is directed against the Order, dated 25th January, 1994, passed by the then learned Vth Rent Controller, Karachi, South, whereby the appellant was directed to hand over vacant possession of the premises in question to the respondents within 60 days from the date of said order. The facts relevant for decision of this appeal are as follows: ' The respondents on 8-8-1988 had filed Rent Application No, 1048 of 1988 against the appellant for her eviction from the House bearing No,MR-1/64, Murad Khan Road, Para Lane, Karachi, on the ground of default in payment of rent. It is the case of the respondents that the appellant is a tenant in the said premises at monthly rent of Rs,80 and that the building in question was purchased by them from its previous owner namely Haji Wali Muhammad, as per Conveyance Deed, dated 17th September, 1987 and that after having sold said building to the respondents, said previous owner, as per letter, dated 9-8-1987 had informed about change of ownership of Vithal Das Magma, who was the husband of the appellant, and asked him to pay rent of the premises with effect from 1-4- 1987 to the respondents. The respondents had also sent the notice dated 26-9-1987, under section 18 of the Ordinance, informing said Vithal Das Magma about the change of ownership and asking him to pay rent in future to the respondents. Said Vithal Das Magma did not pay rent to the respondents. The respondents later on were informed that said Vithal Das Magma had already expired and the appellant being his wife was in possession of the premises. Thereafter, the respondents again sent the notice dated 22-10-1987 and 5-1-1988 to the appellant, informing her about the change of ownership and also requesting her to supply the particulars of the legal heirs of deceased Vithal Das Magma. The appellant, however, neither replied the notice nor paid rent since 1-4-1987, as such, she was a wilful defaulter.
2. ' In spite of service, the appellant did not appear before the Rent Controller. Therefore, the matter proceeded ex parte and eviction order was passed against the appellant on 14th January, 1989, directing her to hand over vacant possession of the premises in question to the respondents. The respondents on 8-7-1989 filed Execution Application No, 18 of 1989 and requested for writ of possession. It appears that on 23-3-1989 the appellant filed objections against the Execution Application and prayed for setting aside said ex parte order. Learned Rent Controller, by order, dated 5th July, 1992, upheld the objections of the appellant and permitted her to contest the matter on merit.
3. ' The appellant on 12-2-1992 filed written reply and took the plea that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. It is her case that notice about the change of ownership was neither served upon her husband nor upon her that still said Haji Wali Muhammad was the owner of the premises. She has stated that her husband expired on 17-7-1983 and that on 3-8-1987 she and previous owner had executed a fresh agreement of tenancy, whereby the rent was increased from Rs,80 to Rs,100 per month, and that in pursuance of said agreement .She paid an amount of Rs,6,000 as advance, being rent of 5 years commencing from 1-1-1988 to 31-12-1992. It is her case at the time the application was filed there was no default and in fact she had already paid rent up to 31st December, 1992.
4. ' Masood Ahmed, a partner of the respondents Firm filed his affidavit-inevidence on behalf of the respondents and appellant filed her affidavit-inevidence. Both were cross-examined ' On assessm ent of the evidence brought on record learned Rent Controller reached the conclusion that the appellant had committed wilful default in payment of rent as such, she was ordered to be evicted from the premises in question by the order, which has been impugned in this appeal.
5. ' It is contended on behalf of the appellant that about the change of ownership, as is required under section 18 of the Ordinance, neither she nor her husband was informed by the respondents and it being so she could not be deemed to have committed default in payment of rent.
6. Above contention is not sound and must fail. The purpose of notice, under section 18 of the Ordinance is to inform the tenant about new ownership for avoiding default in payment of rent.
7. Once it is proved that tenant had knowledge about transfer of ownership, it is not necessary to send him notice under said section. It is now settled principle of law that said notice has nothing to do with creation of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. In fact, it gives a protection to a tenant on the ground of default if the rent is remitted within 30 days from the date when the intimation should in normal course, have reached the tenant.
8. ' Postal acknowledgement (A/6 Exh.0/3) is on record. It appears that it was delivered to the appellant on 25-10-1987. The correctness of the address shown in this acknowledgement is not disputed. Although, it was suggested in cross-examination of the witness of the respondents that it was a forged document, but there was nothing on record to substantiate this assertion. Even if for the sake of argument, it is assumed that this postal acknowledgement is not a valid document, yet, the appellant herself, in her cross-examination, admitted that in execution proceedings it came to her knowledge that previous owner Haji Wali Muhammad had sold the property in question to the respondents. As pointed out earlier, the appellant had filed objections against the execution proceedings on 23rd September, 1989. Thus, it stands proved that, at least from said date, the appellant knew that respondents were the owner of the premises.
9. ' The appellant, in her cross-examination, has also admitted that she had not paid rent to anybody from January, 1993 onward.
10. ' It is also contended on behalf of the appellant that by virtue of agreement dated 3-8-1987 referred to above she had paid advance rent of Rs,6,000 for 5 years to the previous owner from 1st January, 1988 to 31st December, 1992 as such, no default was committed by her when the eviction proceedings were initiated. The validity of this agreement has seriously been challenged by the respondents. She was cross-examined regarding the execution of this agreement and she stated as follows: "I cannot say who had purchased paper of Exh. 0/6. I do not know when Exh. 0/6 was typed after purchase. But it was signed on 3rd August, 1987. But I do not know in whose presence it was signed.
11. I do not know the Magistrate who signed it."
12. It is significant to note that neither the attesting witnesses of said agreement nor the Magistrate before whom it was signed, were examined. The conclusion, therefore, would be that its execution is not proved according to law. Prima facie, it is not a valid document. It is the duty of a tenant to pay/offer rent to landlord each month in time even during the pendency of the eviction proceedings against him/her. Admittedly, the appellant did not pay rent to anybody since January, 1993. Wilful default in payment of rent on the part of the appellant is proved beyond any shadow of doubt. Under the circumstances, the finding of learned Rent Controller is perfectly correct and no exception can be taken to it.
13. ' In consequence, I do not find any merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed with costs. Three months time, however, is granted to the appellant for handing over vacant possession of the premises in question to the respondents. In case, the possession is not handed over to the respondents within aforesaid period, the writ of possession without notice would be issued against the appellant.