Mr. P. N. Nag, J. ( 1 ) THIS is an appeal under Section 39 of the Delhirent Control Act, 1958, (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") against theappellate order of the Rent Control Tribunal dated 12/02/1987whereby the Rent Control Tribunal has reversed the judgment and order ofthe Additional Rent Controller dated 2 2/05/1986 and has dismissed thepetition for eviction. ( 2 ) THE facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the appellant/petitioner filed a petition in the Court of the Additional Rent Controller,delhi under Section 14 (l) (a) of the Act for ejectment of the respondent on theground of non-payment of rent. The Additional Rent Controller havingfound that the respondent has not paid the arrears of rent and further thathe has not complied with the order passed under Section 15 (1) of the Act,ordered ejectment of the respondent from the premises in question. ( 3 ) BEING aggrieved against this order, the respondent filed an appealbefore the Rent Control Tribunal, which was allowed by him and thereby thepetition for ejectment of the appellant/petitioner was dismissed. ( 4 ) BEING aggrieved against this order, the present appellant has filedthis appeal under Section 39 of the Act. It may be noticed here that at therelevant time when the appeal was filed, the same was maintainable undersection 39 of the Act. However, at present the Act stands amended. ( 5 ) THE notice was ordered to be issued to the respondent but therespondent did not appear. This Court then allowed effecting of service ofnotice on the. respondent by publication. Inspite of that nobody appearedfor the respondent. Again notices were sent by ordinary process as well asby registered A. D. post for 26/10/1990 to the respondent for attendingthe Court in connection with hearing of the matter. But, unfortunately nobody came and attended the Court, and, therefore, under these circumstances the appeal was directed for hearing. Even today nobody has appearedfor the respondent. ( 6 ) THERE is no dispute that the rent has not been paid by the respondent and order passed by the Additional Rent Controller, Delhi under Section15 (1) of the Act has not been complied with by the respondent and, therefore,appellant/petitioner is entitled to the ejectment order from the Court. However, the Rent Control Tribunal has non-suited the appellant/petitioner on theground that the father of the appellant Mr. However, the Rent Control Tribunal has non-suited the appellant/petitioner on theground that the father of the appellant Mr. Narota Ram had died and thereare certain heirs left by Mr. Narota Ram along with the appellant/petitionerand that the appellant/petitioner without impleading other co-owners/heirs in thepetition cannot have any locus standi to file the petition and the petition was,therefore, not maintainable. This objection has been taken in the reply by therespondent that the petitioner/appellant is not the landlord and has no locusstandi to file the petition. ( 7 ) LEARNED Counsel for the appellant/petitioner has vehemently submitted that the appellant/petitioner is not only the owner but also landlord ofthe premises and he has every locus standi to file the petition and that therent Control Tribunal has gravely erred in law by having reversed the wellreasoned judgment of the Additional Rent Controller. The Additional Rentcontroller after appreciation of the evidence has rightly come to conclusionthat the petitioner/appellant has proved his case. ( 8 ) I have given careful consideration to the submissions of learnedcounsel for the appellant/petitioner. In this case the petitioner/appellant hascome in the witness box as A. W. I, and has categorically stated that therespondent has not paid the arrears of rent with effect from 3/02/1983. His father has died on 21/12/1982 and thereafter he is theowner of the property and the property stands mutated in his name. Copy ofmutation is Exhibit A. W. 1/10. It may be noticed here that the petitioner wasnot cross-examined at all by the respondent. Even otherwise, my attentionhas been drawn to the order passed by Additional Judge Small Causes Court,delhi dated 27/01/1978 (Exhibit A. W. I/4) whereby in a suit for therecovery of rent filed by the father of the appellant/petitioner against thepresent respondent in respect of the same premises, the present respondent hasappeared as D. W. I and has admitted that he used to pay rent to Mr. Narotaram and sometimes to his son Mr. Chaman Lal, who is present in Court. Inother words, he has admitted that he has been paying rent to Chaman Lal aswell, who is the present appellapt/petitioner. No evidence whatsoever inrebuttal has been produced. Nobody has come forward to challenge theauthority of Mr. Chaman Lal to file the petition as a landlord. In thesecircumstances, the version/testimony of the appellant/petitioner that he is theowner/landlord has to be accepted as true. No evidence whatsoever inrebuttal has been produced. Nobody has come forward to challenge theauthority of Mr. Chaman Lal to file the petition as a landlord. In thesecircumstances, the version/testimony of the appellant/petitioner that he is theowner/landlord has to be accepted as true. There is nothing on record toshow that Shri Narota Ram left any heir. Even if it is assumed that Shrinarota Ram left other heirs, there is no dispute that the present appellant/ petitioner is also one of the co-heirs and has been receiving rent inrespect ofthe premises even during the life time of his father which fact has been admitted by the respondent. In my opinion, since the respondent has been payingthe rent to the appellant/petitioner, who was acting as the landlord also alongwith his father during his life time and has been accepted as such by thetenant/respondent, himself and further neither respondent nor anybody else hasproduced evidence in rebuttal, on the petitioner/appellant has every locus standito file this petition as a landlord. ( 9 ) IN Smt. Kanta Gael v. B. P. Pathak and Other, AIR 1977 S. C. 1599,a similar question arose and it was held that where a landlord who had let outhis premises to a tenant, dies and his heirs succeed to his estate, one co-heir towhom the rent is being paid by the tenant and who receives it on behalf of theestate, would be landlord for the purposes of the Act. The Co-heirs constituted the body of landlords and, by consent implicit or otherwise, of the pluralityof landlords, one of them representing them all, was collecting rent. In short,he functioned for all practical purposes as the landlord and was therefore entitled to institute proceedings for eviction against the tenant qualandlord. ( 10 ) THE approach of the learned Rent Control Tribunal has beenwholly erroneous inasmuch as he has ignored the evidence produced by theappellant/petitioner as A. W. I on the file and has merely relied upon thestatement made in the reply. The reply to the petition is itself is not anevidence unless it is proved by way of evidence. There is no evidencewhatsoever on the file to show that the petitioner/appellant is not a landlordand the finding of the Rent Control Tribunal to that effect is without evidence. The appeal, therefore, raises substantial question of law, and is as such, a fitcase of interference in the Second Appeal. There is no evidencewhatsoever on the file to show that the petitioner/appellant is not a landlordand the finding of the Rent Control Tribunal to that effect is without evidence. The appeal, therefore, raises substantial question of law, and is as such, a fitcase of interference in the Second Appeal. ( 11 ) IN the light of the above discussion, the judgment of the Rentcontrol Tribunal is set aside and the judgment of the Additional Rent Controller is restored and thereby the order of eviction is passed against the respondent/tenant. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as tocosts.