( 1 ) THE question for decision in this second appeal is whether there exists relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. Briefly the facts are that Hardit Singh, predecessor of the appellants and respondents 2 and 3 was inducted as a tenant in two rooms with two front verandahs, latrine and open court-yard at 118-B Kalkaji, New Delhi on a monthly of Rs. 40. 00 excluding other charges in June, 1955. Mool Chand respondent No. 1 on 1st October, 1971 filed an application for the eviction of Hardit Singh, tenant under section 14 (l) (e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter REFERRED TO to as the Act ) alleging that the premises were let for residential purposes and were required bona fide for occupation for himself and the members of his family dependent upon him, that he was the owner tliereof having no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation, that he had been ordered to vacate the railway quarter No. 25-E/a, Subzi Mandi, Delhi by the concerned authorities. Hardit Singh in the written statement pleaded that he was tenant under Amir Ghand and not under Mool Ghand, that Amir Ghand alone had let the premises to him and was realising rent from him. Mool Ghand, respondent in his replication pleaded that Amir Chand was his father and that he was realising rent on his behalf from Hardit Singh. The question in dispute before the Controller was whether there was any relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. Hardit Singh, tenant died during the pendency of the proceedings before the Additional Controller and his four daughters were substituted. The Additional Controller vide judgment and order dated 1st March, 1976 held that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between Mool Chand and Hardit Singh and dismissed the eviction application. On appeal by Mool Ghand the Tribunal held that Amir Ghand father of Mool Ghand no interest in the property in question, that he was managing the property on behalf of Mool Chand and in that capacity had let out the premises to to Hardit Singh. The Tribunal further held that Mool Chand, owner of the property in question, was landlord as defined under the Act. The Tribunal therefore held that there was relationship and tenant between the parties and remanded the case to the Controller for decision in according with law.

( 2 ). In this second appeal on behalf of the heirs of Hardit Singh, deceased-tenant, it has been urged that Amir Chand, father of Mool Chand was the landlord who had never disclosed at any time that he was acting on behalf of Mool Chand. Learned counsel further submits that Mool Chand, respondent No. 1 is not the landlord and therefore the eviction petition is not maintainable.

( 3 ). The word landlord has been defined in Section 2 (e) of the Act as follows:

"landlord" means a person who, for the time being is receiving, or is entitled to receive, the rent of any premises, whether on his own account or on account of or on behalf of, or for the benefit of any other person or as a trustee, guardian or receiver for any other person or who would so receive the rent or be entitled to receive the rent, if the premises were let to a tenant". Under this definition any person who is entitled to receive rent is the landlord. In other words, an owner who is entitled to receive rent is landlord within the meaning of Section 2 (e) of the Act. Further any person, who for the time being is receiving rent whether on his account or on account of or on, behalf of, or for the benefit of any other person is also a landlord. The dennition of the word landlord as given in the Act is the widest. An owner os the property is also a landlord. Any person who realise the rent on behalf of another is also landlord within the meaning of the Act. The Tribunal after appreciating the entire evidence has concluded that Amir Chand, father of Mool Chand was managing the property on behalf of his son and that he was collecting rent on behalf