( 1 ) THE respondent filed an application under Section 15 (2 of Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 for eviction of the appellant. It is averred by the landlord that he retired from Government service in 1985 and, therefore, is entitled to seek eviction. He was residing on the first floor since 1952 whilethe ground floor was in possession of the appellant. It was urged on behalf of the landlord that he wanted to start a Homoeopathic practice. The portion in his occupation and enjoyment was not sufficient. Therefore eviction was prayed for.

( 2 ) THE appellant contested the application. The trial court allowed the application for eviction wholly on the ground that the landlord was a specified landlord within the meaning of Section 15. The High court dismissed the revision filed by the appellant herein. Hence, this Civil.

( 3 ) TWO questions of law are argued before us by the learned counsel for the tenant-appellant. (1 The definition of a landlord clearly postulates that specified landlord is a person who receives the rent on his own account. In this case admittedly the property after the death of the predecessor-in-title has devolved on five co-owners. Therefore, there is no question of specified landlord (in this case, the respondent) being entitled to receive the rent on his own account. (2 Then again Section 15 (2 will not apply to the facts of this case. Thus, notwithstanding the fact that both the courts below have held against, the appellant is entitled to succeed on this legal interpretation.

( 4 ) THE learned counsel for the respondent-landlord, in opposition, would contend that an agreement has been entered into amongst the co-owners to the effect that the respondent would be entitled to receive the rent on his own account and he had been managing property for long. This affidavit is dated 11th day of August, 1991. Hence, Section 2 (i) is satisfied.

( 5 ) IT is not correct to contend that Section 15 (2 will not apply. On the contrary, it is squarely applicable to the facts of the case. In any event, if summary eviction is not available to the landlord in this case, this court is not powerless to render a finding whether at least as one of the co-owners, it would be open to the respondent to maintain a petition for eviction. On that ground the matter could be adjudicated, otherwise it would take long time for the landlord to obtain eviction of the tenant.

( 6 ) WE proceed to decide the legal question involved in this case putting aside the sympathetic consideration because it is dangerous "like the will of the wisp".

( 7 ) SECTION 2 (i) of the Act defines a specific landlord as follows: "that the landlord must be a person who is entitled to receive the rent. " This means a legal entitlement. Secondly, such an entitlement, to receive the rent must be on his own account. Where, therefore, admittedly a property by devolution has devolved on five co-owners, it cannot be said that one of the co-owners (the landlord in this case) is legally entitled to receive on his own account. No doubt, what is pressed into service is an affidavit dated 11/8/1991 which has come to be filed pending Civil in this court. This affidavit states the respondent-landlord is entitled to receive the rent on his own account and he has been managing the property so long. We are unable to conclude the title could be renounced in this fashion and the entitlement could be conferred on the respondent through this affidavit. Besides this has come to be filed after the eleventh hour however before the twelfth. Whatever it may be, this cannot make the landlord legally entitled to receive the rent on his own account.

( 8 ) AS regards Section 15 (2, we do not think we need to go into the question at all, once we find the application under Section 2 (1 is not maintainable. Accordingly the Civil will stand allowed. The decree for eviction is hereby set aside. No costs.

( 9 ) IN the event of landlord filing an independent application for eviction of t