A person who is entitled to receive rent in respect of any building or rented land, whether on his own account or on behalf or for the benefit of any other person, or as a trustee, guardian, receiver, executor or administrator for any other person, is a landlord within the meaning of S.2(c) of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1971.

This is a tenants revision under S.21 (5) of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1971 (referred to as the Act, against the order of the Appellate Authority, Simla, upholding the order of the Rent Controller (I), Simla, directing eviction of the tenant.

2. In Ladakhi Mohalla, Simla, is situated a building known as Imambara and bearing No.116/3. A set of two rooms, a latrine, and a verandah of the Imambara had been rented to Kulwant Singh and Mohinder Singh for their residence on a monthly rent of Rs. 11-90. A petition for eviction under S.14 of the Act was made against the tenants on the grounds that they have ceased to occupy the premises for a continuous period of 12 months without reasonable cause, that the tenants were in arrears of rent to the time of Rs. 315-32 paise; and that the premises were required by the petitioner for the personal use and occupation of a muezzin. This petition was resisted only by Mohinder Singh (referred to as the tenant). It was inter alia averred that the petitioner was neither the landlord nor was entitled to receive the rent, and since the building belongs to the Punjab Wakf Board, Ambala, Mohamed Ibrahim, who had filed the eviction petition, "had no right to" file it. It was denied that the tenant was in arrears of rent or that he had ceased to occupy the building as alleged.

3. On the pleadings of the parties as many as 8 issues were framed by the Rent Controller. He came to the conclusion that (a) that the tenants were in arrears of rent to the tune of Rs. 297-50 paise; and (b) that the tenants had ceased to occupy the premises as alleged. It was also held that the building was not needed for the muezzin. An order of eviction was passed against the tenants.

4. Mohinder Singh tenant, filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority, Simla. It was contended that Mohamed Ibrahim had no locus standi to file any eviction petition against the tenant nor had the tenant ceased to occupy the building. The contentions of the tenant were negatived and the appeal was dismissed.

5. Mr. B.R. Tuli, learned counsel for the tenant-petitioner, contends that Mohamed Ibrahim had no locus standi to file the eviction petition. It is submitted that the property belongs to Punjab Waqf Board, Ambala, which had to sue in its own name.

6. It is not in controversy that the Imambara is a Wakf property and its superintendence vests in the Punjab Wakf Board (the Board). It is true that under S.9 (2) of the Wakf Act the Board is required to sue in its name. One of the functions of the Board is to institute and defend suits and proceedings in a court of law relating to wakfs (clause (i) of sub-s. (2) of S.15 of the Act). But the locus standi of a petitioner is to be tested with reference to the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act. S.14 of the Act provides the procedure for eviction of a tenant. Sub-sec. (2) of S.14 requires a landlord to apply to the Controller for the eviction of a tenant. The word landlord has been defined in cl. (c) of S.2 in the following terms: "(c) "landlord" means any person for the time being entitled to receive rent in respect at any building or rented land whether on his own account or on behalf or for the benefit of any other person, or as a trustee, guardian, receiver, executor Or administrator for any other person, and includes a tenant who, sublets any building or rented land in the manner hereinafter authorised, and every person from time to time driving title under a landlord;" In other words, if Mohamed Ibrahim could be said to be a landlord in the aforementioned definition, he will be entitled lo maintain the present petition.

7. Now under S.15 of the Wakf Act it is the general superintendence of a wakf which vests in a Board. It is that duty of the Board to ensure, inter alia, that the wakf under its superintendence is properly maintained, controlled and administered S.16 empowers the Board to "establish either generally or for a particular purpose or for any specified area or