The owner of the property, who is entitled to receive rent for the time being, is the landlord for the purposes of the Act, even if someone else inducted the tenant and was entitled to receive rent on their behalf.

J.V.Gupta, J.

1. The landlord petitioner has filed this revision petition against the order of the Appellate Authority, Jullundir dated 23.1.1978, whereby the order of the Rent Controller directing ejectment of the tenant has been set aside.

2. Shrimati Ram Piari, widow of Shri Buta Ram petitioner filed application for ejectment alleging that the respondents Ram Saroop etc. had taken the shop on rent from her at Rs. 600/- per month with effect from March 25, 1972. It was alleged that the tenants had not paid the rent from March 25, 1972, that they had sub-let the premises without her consent and that they had changed the shape of the premises and had made other constructions without her permission, impairing the valuable utility of the premises. This application was contested by Ram Saroop tenant. It was stated by him that originally the premises were let out on rent by Surinder Kumar (who is son of the petitioner Shrimati Ram Piari) at Rs. 200/- per month on March 27, 1972 and from 1st of April, 1973, the rent was increased to Rs. 300/- per month. So the claim was that Surinder Kumar was the landlord and not the petitioner Shrimati Ram Piari. Other allegations were also denied. Even the rent which was due was not tendered or paid on the first date of hearing. On the pleadings of the parties, the Rent Controller framed the following issues :-

1. Whether there is relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioner and respondent Nos. 1 to 3.

2. Whether respondents are liable to be ejected on the grounds mentioned in para 5 of the petition.

3. Whether respondents 1 to 3 have sublet the premises in dispute to respondent No. 4, without the consent and permission of the landlord.

4. Whether a valid notice has been served on the respondents, if not its effect.

5. Relief.

3. The learned Rent Controller found all the issues in favour of the landlord and consequently passed an eviction order against the tenant. In appeal the learned Appellate Authority has reversed the finding of the Rent Controller on issue No. 1 and it has been held that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and consequently accepted the appeal and set aside the order of ejectment passed by the Rent Controller. While disposing the appeal, it has been observed by the Appellate Authority that "no doubt she was the owner yet she had not let the property to the tenants. The tenancy being a contract, can be availed of only by a person who entered into it. The circumstances show that Surinder Kumar did not lease out the property on behalf of Ram Piari and represented himself to be the landlord and was then dealt with the property and the rent accordingly." Feeling aggrieved against this order, the landlord has come up in revision to this Court.

4. The learned counsel for the landlord vehemently contended that the Appellate Authority has acted illegally and improperly in setting aside the finding of the Rent Controller and it has been wrongly held that there is not relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. Even according to the finding of the Appellate Authority, the counsel submits, Ram Piari is the owner and she, therefore becomes the landlord as defined in section 2(c) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter called `the Act) which is to the following effect :-

" 2(a) .... .... .... ....

2(b) .... .... .... ....

2(c) `Landlord means any person, person for the time being 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 or any another person, and includes a tenant who sublets any building or rented land in the manner hereinafter authorised, and, every person from time to time having title under a landlord."

Similarly the owner `tenant has also been defined in Section 2(i) of the Act which reads thus :-

" 2(a) to 2 (h) .... .