( 1 ) TENANT is the petitioner. The lower court ordered eviction of the petitioner from the petition schedule premises on the ground that he committed wilful default in payment of rents for three months viz. , July 1987 to September 1987 and also on the ground that first respondent landlord bona fide requires the petition schedule premises for his personal occupation. Second respondent- herein, who is the co-owner of the petition schedule premises along with the first respondent herein, got herself impleaded as a party petitioner in the eviction petition. She filed a petition in the lower court, stating that she has not instructed the first respondent herein to file the eviction petition and the first respondent, being only a sharer of the property, cannot evict the petitioner, from the petition schedule premises - the tenant. The second respondent herein had already filed a suit, O. S. No. 635 of 1985 on the file of the III Additional Judge, city Civil Court, Hyderabad, for partition of the suit schedule property and for separate possession of her share and that suit is pending.

( 2 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner/tenant has raised two points. Firstly, he submits that the first respondent herein is not the exclusive owner of the petition schedule property and as there are other persons also who have got shares in the petition schedule property, the eviction petition, filed by the first respondent without reference to the other co-owners/sharers, is not maintainable. Secondly, he submits that the eviction petition filed by the first respondent herein, without obtaining the permission of the other co-owners/sharers of the property, as contemplated under Sub-section (8) of Section 10 of the A. P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (hereinafter called "the Act"), is not maintainable.

( 3 ) IN order to decide these two points, the following brief narration of facts of the case is necessary. The petition schedule property originally belonged to the father of first respondent herein- M. F. Immanuel, who executed a will, giving one-third share to the first respondent and one-sixth share each to his two daughters, and the remaining one third share to one Joseph Immanuel till his life and thereafter to the children of Joseph Immanuel. The 2nd respondent-here-in is one of the sisters of the first respondent, and one of the daughters of m. F. Immanuel. The will, executed by m. F. Immanuel has been probated, as evidenced by Ex. P. 8 issued under the Indian Succession act and the first respondent-herein has been appointed as one of the Executors of the said Will. It is not in dispute that the petitioner herein/tenant has been paying the rents to the first respondent herein, who was collecting the rents on his behalf and on behalf of the other co-owners of the property. The facts also disclose that the 2nd respondent-herein has been receiving her share of rents from the 1st respondent -herein, as evidenced by Exs. P. 9 to p. 24, receipts passed by the 2nd respondent to the I st respondent.

( 4 ) SECTION 2 (vi) of the Act defines the term "landlord" thus. "landlord" means the owner of a building and includes a person who is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of a building, whether on his own account or on behalf of another person or on behalf of himself and others or as an agent, trustee, executor, administrator, receiver or guardian or who would so receive the rent or be entitled to receive the rent, if the building were let to a tenant. . . "a reading of the above definition of the term "landlord" discloses that the person who is authorised to received the rents is also a landlord within the meaning of the Act. Petitioner/tenant has been paying the rents regularly to the first respondent-herein. Ex P 8 discloses that the first respondent- herein has been appointed as the Executor of the Will. First respondent-herein, in his evidence before the Rents Controller, has categorically stated t