A.Muhamed Mustaque, J.

The landlord in this revision questions an order of remand passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority. In the Rent Control Petition, the tenant, Mr.Muhammed Hisham, was made a party in his personal capacity. He raised a contention that the tenancy was for the firm and therefore, the entire partnership firm ought to have been impleaded. The Rent Controller overruled the objection and passed an order of eviction under Section 11(2)(a)(b) and 11(4)(ii) of the Kerala Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). This was appealed by the tenant. The Rent Control Appellate Authority, noting that the landlord had not impleaded the partnership firm, remanded the matter for fresh disposal, giving an opportunity to the landlord to implead the parties and to adduce evidence. This order is questioned in this revision. We find that the order of the Appellate Authority is legally unsustainable, as ‘tenant’ is defined under the Act as a person by whom or on whose account rent is payable. There is no dispute that Mr.Muhammed Hisham represented the firm in the lease deed. If that be so, he is the only person, as far as the landlord is