JUDGMENT : The respondents instituted the suit out of which this appeal arises to obtain a decree for ejectment and arrears of rent against the present appellant. They alleged that the property vested in them under the will of one Rajab Ali. On the death of Rajab Ali notice was given to the appellant-defendant to vacate or pay rent at Rs. 7-8-0 in place of Rs. 2-8-0. The defendant denied the plaintiff's right to eviction or enhanced rent and finally on 31-12-1945, the final notice to vacate was given. 2. The defendant contended that the plaintiffs were not the heirs of Rajab Ali; that the rent-note was inadmissible for want of registration and further set up his own occupation under an agreement by Rajab Ali to reconvey the property to him. It may be mentioned that Rajab Ali had purchased the property from the defendant and his brother on 21-6-1938 (Vide Ex. P/1). 3. The claim was decreed by the trial Court for ejectment and arrears of rent at Rs. 2-8-0 per month. The defendant's appeal against the decree for ejectment was dismissed by the District Judge Jaora, and a cross-appeal by the plaintiff for arrears of rent at Rs. 7-8-0 was allowed. The defendant has come up in appeal. 4. The questions raised in this appeal are : 1. Are plaintiffs entitled to bring the suit? 2. Is the rent-note admissible in evidence? 3. Had the plaintiffs a cause of action for ejectment? 4. Can arrears be granted at the enhanced rate claimed by the plaintiff? The finding that the will set up by the plaintiff is proved has not been challenged in the memo of appeal but the learned Counsel for the appellant contended that there was no attestation proved. Under the Mohommadan Law, however, no formalities are needed and an unattested will can be admitted and proved. (See Mulla's Mahommadan Law page (sic.)). 5. It is unnecessary to consider the question of the admissibility of the rent-note since the tenancy was expressly admitted by the defendant in the replies to the notices to vacate and the only dispute was then as to the quantum of rent. The defendant never challenged the validity of the notice and in view of this present contention that he was ever a tenant, the question does not arise at this stage. The defendant never challenged the validity of the notice and in view of this present contention that he was ever a tenant, the question does not arise at this stage. There was clearly cause for an action on the defendant's refusal to vacate. 6. The only question is about the propriety of the decree for arrears. The tenancy connotes privity between the parties and unless there is an express agreement to pay enhanced rent or circumstances or conduct from which one could be inferred a claim for enhanced rent cannot stand. The learned Judge below has relied on a decision of the Nagpur High Court reported in 'Parekh Nandlal v. Anant Govind', AIR (27) 1940 Nag 140. A perusal of the judgment shows however that an agreement to pay enhanced rent was inferred in that case by the absence of protest against the landlord's demand. The correct principle has been enunciated in the decision reported in 'Mahomed Noor v. Ashiq Beg', 145 IC 647 (Oudh), which explains the observations in the earlier case in 'S. Burge v. Md. Inamullah Khan', AIR (12) 1925 Oudh 189 (3) and agreeing with this view I hold that the decree for enhanced rent cannot stand. 7. I allow the appeal in part and setting aside the decree of the lower appellate Court restore that of the First Court. Fakhruddin was not a proper party to the suit and his name should be struck off. In view of the fact that the plaintiff partially succeeds and so does the defendant. I direct that parties should bear their own costs throughout. Appeal allowed.