(1) THESE are tenants appeals. These appeals are filed against the judgment of the High Court which disposed of the two civil revisions filed by the tenant. One revision petition was directed against the order of the Rent Controller dismissing the application for grant of permission to defend the petition. The second revision was against the order of ejectment passed by the Rent Controller. By a common judgment, the High Court dismissed both the revision petitions.

(2) LEARNED counsel appearing for the appellants has raised two contentions before us. According to him, the respondent landlord is not a "specified landlord" within the definition of Section 2(h) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 ("the Act"). The second contention raised by the learned counsel is that the respondent being a co-owner, could not by himself institute the eviction proceedings.

(3) SECTION 2(h) of the Act is as under:

"2. (h) Specified landlord means, person who is entitled to receive the rent in respect of a building on his own account and who is holding or has held an appointment in public service or post in connection with affairs of the Union or of the State."

(