A co-owner of a rented property is a 'specified landlord' within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act and can maintain an eviction application under Section 13-A of the Act without impleading the other co-owners as parties, provided that the other co-owners consent to the eviction.

N.K.Kapoor, J.

1. This revision petition is against the order of Rent Controller dated 29-5-1989 whereby the petitioners application under Section 13-A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act (for short the Act) was dismissed.

2. Briefly put, the petitioner filed ejectment application under Section 13-A of the Act against the respondent on the ground that he is the owner/landlord of the disputed premises ; that he has retired from the railway department on 18-3-1988 and requires the premises in dispute for his own occupation. The petitioner further stated that the house bearing No. 185--subjecc matter of the eviction application-was earlier owned by his father Sh. Piyare Lal. On his death, lie, his brother Bal Krishan and his sister Prem have inherited the property. It was further stated that presently the petitioner and his brother are in possession of one room, one store and one chobara out of house No. 185, whereas the respondent is in possession of one room, kitchen-cum-store, common v]arandah and a courtyard. The petitioner further stated that other co-owners of house No. 185, namely, his brother Bal Krishan and sister Prem, have consented to the filing of the present petition.

3. The respondent put in appearance and sought permission of the Court to contest the petition which was granted by the Court vide order dated 7-9-1988. By way of reply, the respondent controverted the various submissions made in the application.

4. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed :-

(1) Whether the petitioner is a specified landlord 7 OPA

(2) Whether the tender is short and invalid ? OPA.

(3) Whether the petitioner requires the premises in dispute for his personal use and occupation ? OPA.

(4) Whether the petition is bad for non-joinder of Sh. Bal Krishan and Smt. Prem ? OPR.

(5) Whether the petitioner has got a suitable accommodation comprising in Unit No. 182/13 ? OPR

(6) Whether the petitioner intends to dispose of the property in dispute as alleged by the respondent ? If so, its effect ? OPR.

(7) Relief.

5. The Rent Controller decided issue No. 1 in favour of the petitioner holding that he is a specified landlord Issue No. 2 was decided against the petitioner as the amount was tendered within tie stipulated period. Issues No. 3 and 4 were decided against the petitioner. Issue No. 5 was decided against the respondent. Under issue No. 6, it was held that there is no merit in the contention of the respondent that the petitioner intends to dispose of the dispute premises after getting the same vacated. Resultantly, the Rent Controller, in view of findings on issues No. 1 and 4, dismissed the eviction application.

6. The first submission of the learned counsel is that the Rent Controller has, indeed, erred in law in non suiting the petitioner merely on the ground that his brother and sister have not been impleaded as co-landlords. According to the petitioner, even one of the landlords can file eviction application against the respondent. Even otherwise, the tenant has no right to challenge the locus standi of his landlord to file the petition. Elaborating, the counsel referred to the definition of landlord as contained in Section 2(c) of the At which reads as under :-

"2 (c) "landlord" means any 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 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 deriving title under a landlord."

7. The counsel further urged that this precise point as to whether one of the co-landlords can maintain an application for ejectment against his tenant under Section 13 of the Act came up for consideration before a Division Bench in case Mathura Dass v. Ram Piari, 1982 C.L. J. (Civil) 20 which