Judgment V.M.Jain, J. 1. This revision petition has been filed by the tenant against the order passed by the appellate authority, whereby the appeal filed by the landlady was allowed, order passed by the Rent Controller was set aside and the order of ejectment was passed against the tenant. 2. Facts of the case in brief are that Smt. Sharda Pandey (landlady) wife of Sh. S.N. Pandey, filed petition under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973, against Jai Parkash Singh (tenant), seeking his eviction from a portion of the residential house, alleging therein that Jai Parkash Singh was a tenant on the said portion, on a monthly rent of Rs. 3000/- excluding electricity, water and sewerage and other charges, with effect from September, 1997. It was alleged that the tenant had failed to pay the arrears of rent with effect from 1.3.2000 till May, 2000, amounting to Rs. 9000/- besides water charges @ Rs. 100/- per month amounting to Rs. 300/-. It was alleged that Jai Parkash Singh, tenant was liable to be evicted from the tenanted premises on the ground of non-payment of rent for the period from 1.3.2000 to May, 2000 besides water charges. 3. Said petition was contested by Jai Parkash Singh, tenant by filing written statement, taking up the preliminary objection that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and that Smt. Sharda Pandey had no cause of action and locus standi to file the present petition. On merits, it was denied that Smt. Sharda Pandey was his landlady. On the other hand, it was alleged that in fact he was a tenant under Sh. S.N. Pandey (husband of Smt. Sharda Pandey) on a monthly rent of Rs. 1000/- and that he had already filed a suit for permanent injunction against Sh. S.N. Pandey before the civil court and the same was pending and in the said suit, Sh. S.N. Pandey had himself admitted him (Jai Parkash Singh) as tenant under him. It was admitted that he was tenant in respect of a portion of the house in question but it was alleged that he was a tenant on monthly rent of Rs. 1000/- excluding electricity, water, sewerage and other charges. It was denied that he had failed to pay the arrears of rent w.e.f. 1.3.2000 @ Rs. It was admitted that he was tenant in respect of a portion of the house in question but it was alleged that he was a tenant on monthly rent of Rs. 1000/- excluding electricity, water, sewerage and other charges. It was denied that he had failed to pay the arrears of rent w.e.f. 1.3.2000 @ Rs. 3000/- per month till May, 2000, amounting to Rs. 9000/- plus water charges @ Rs. 100/- per month, amounting to Rs. 300/-. It was denied that he was liable to be ejected from the demised premises on the ground of non-payment of rent. It was accordingly prayed that ejectment petition be dismissed. In the replication filed by Smt. Sharda Pandey, it was alleged that there was relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. It was denied that rate of rent was Rs. 1000/- p.m. On the other hand, it was alleged that rate of rent was Rs. 3000/- per month besides Rs. 100/- p.m. towards water charges. 4. After the tenant was served in the ejectment petition, he had put in appearance before the Rent Controller and had made a statement that Smt. Sharda Pandey was not his landlady and that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and that his landlord was Sh. S.N. Pandey and that for that reason he was not tendering any rent, and that he had already filed a suit in the court against S.N. Pandey, regarding tender of rent. 5. On the pleadings of the parties, various issues were framed by the learned Rent Controller. 6. After hearing both sides, learned Rent Controller dismissed the ejectment petition filed by Smt. Sharda Pandey, holding that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. However, the appeal filed by the landlady was accepted by the appellate authority, order passed by the Rent Controller was set aside and the ejectment order was passed against Jai Parkash Singh (tenant), holding that Smt. Sharda Pandey being the owner was certainly the landlady of Jai Parkash Singh (tenant) and thus there was relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. It was further held that the tenant having not tendered the arrears of rent, even Rs. 1000/- per month, he was liable to be ejected from the demised premises on the ground of non-payment of rent. Accordingly, order of ejectment was passed against him. It was further held that the tenant having not tendered the arrears of rent, even Rs. 1000/- per month, he was liable to be ejected from the demised premises on the ground of non-payment of rent. Accordingly, order of ejectment was passed against him. Aggrieved against the same, Jai Parkash Singh, tenant has filed the present revision petition in this court. 7. Notice of motion was issued. Subsequently, records were also ordered to be summoned. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record carefully. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner tenant submitted before me that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and as such ejectment petition filed by Smt. Sharda Pandey, seeking his eviction from the demised premises, was not maintainable and was liable to be dismissed. It was submitted that learned appellate authority had erred in law in holding that there was relationship of land lord and tenant between the parties. It was submitted that present petitioner namely Jai Parkash Singh had taken the house in question on rent from Sh. S.N. Pandey and as such Sh. S.N. Pandey was his landlord and not Smt. Sharda Pandey. Reliance was placed on Om Parkash Rohila v. Sat Pal and Anr., (1993-1)103 P.L.R. 168, Mohinder Singh v. Ram Nath, 1985(1) Rent Control Reporter 642; Kishori Lal v. Radha Rani Gupta, (1994-3)108 P.L.R. 486, Vinod B. Walla awl Ors. v. Avtar Singh and Anr. 1984(1) Rent Control Reporter 138; and Hans Raj v. M/s Raj Iron Store, (1987-1)91 P.L.R. 532. 9. However, I find no force in these submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner tenant. Smt. Sharda Pandey had filed the ejectment petition claiming herself to be landlady on the ground that she was owner of the house in question, and that the tenant had not paid the arrears of rent. In the written statement filed by Jai Parkash Singh, tenant, it was only alleged that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and that he was a tenant under Sh. S.N. Pandey (husband of Smt. Sharda Pandey) and that in the civil suit filed by him, Sh. S.N. Pandey had admitted that he was a tenant under him. In the replication filed by Smt. Sharda Pandey, it was alleged that there was relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. S.N. Pandey (husband of Smt. Sharda Pandey) and that in the civil suit filed by him, Sh. S.N. Pandey had admitted that he was a tenant under him. In the replication filed by Smt. Sharda Pandey, it was alleged that there was relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. Exhibit P-1 is photocopy of the sale deed dated 17.11.1998 executed by Kailash Chand Sharma and Smt. Asha Rani (previous owners) though their Mukhtiar Sh. Kameshwar Chaube, vide which they had sold the house in question to Smt. Sharda Pandey, wife of Sh. S.N. Pandey for a sum of Rs. 4,80,000/-. It was further alleged that the possession of the said house was already with the vendee (Smt. Sharda Pandey). Said sale deed is signed by Sh. Kameshwar Chaube, being the attorney of vendors Kailash Chand Sharma and Smt. Asha Rani and is also signed by purchaser Smt. Sharda Pandey. Exhibit R-1 is the copy of the plaint filed by Jai Parkash Singh, tenant against Sh. S.N. Pandey, alleging therein that he (Jai Parkash) was tenant in possession under Sh. S.N. Pandey, on a portion of the house in question and that previously Sh. A.S. Mehra was the owner of the house and that said Sh. A.S. Mehra had sold the said house to defendant (Sh. S.N. Pandey) and now he was landlord/owner of the said house. It was alleged that defendant (Sh. S.N. Pandey) illegally and forcibly wanted to interfere in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff (Jai Parkash Singh) over the house in question and wanted to dispossess him from the rented premises, illegally and forcibly. Exhibit R-2 is the copy of the written statement filed by Sh. S.N. Pandey. It was alleged that premises in question were given to the plaintiff purely on temporary basis. There was also dispute of rate and period since the rent was due; It was denied that defendant wanted to dispossess the plaintiff from the rented premises, illegally and forcibly. Exhibit PX is the certified copy of the application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, filed by Sh. There was also dispute of rate and period since the rent was due; It was denied that defendant wanted to dispossess the plaintiff from the rented premises, illegally and forcibly. Exhibit PX is the certified copy of the application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, filed by Sh. S.N. Pandey, seeking permission to amend the written statement, so as to take up the plea that in fact the plaintiff (Jai Parkash Singh) was never inducted by him as a tenant and that he was neither the owner nor the landlord of the premises in question and that previous owners namely Kailash Chand Sharma and Smt. Asha Rani through their Attorney Sh. Kameshwar Chaube had sold the said house in favour of Smt. Sharda Pandey wire of Sh S.N. Pandey, vide sale deed dated 27.11.1998 and that Smt. Sharda Pandey was landlady/owner of the house in question and she had filed eviction petition under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973, against the present plaintiff Jai Parkash Singh and the same was pending before the Rent Controller. 10. In the present petition for ejectment, Smt. Sharda Pandey had appeared in the witness box as PW1 and had stated that she was owner of the house by virtue of sale deed copy Ex.P-1 and Jai Parkash Singh was tenant of a portion of the house on monthly rent of Rs. 3000/- and he had not paid rent since December 1997 and that he was liable to be ejected from the house in question on the ground of non-payment of rent. She further stated that inspite of compromise Mark-A and Mark-B, tenant had not vacated the premises. During cross examination, she stated, that compromise Mark-A and Mark-B were not signed by her but were signed by her husband (Sh. S.N. Pandey). She admitted that compromise was between her husband and tenant. She stated that she was owner of the rouse in question and that it was got registered in her name on 27.11.1998 and that power of attorney was in the name of Shri Kameshwar Chaube. She stated that agreement was with her since June 1991 but she had not brought a copy of the agreement with her. She stated that before she became owner of the property, Jai Parkash Singh was tenant in the house in question. She stated that agreement was with her since June 1991 but she had not brought a copy of the agreement with her. She stated that before she became owner of the property, Jai Parkash Singh was tenant in the house in question. She denied the suggestion that house in question was given on rent by Sh. S.N. Pandey, On the other hand, she stated that she had given the house in question on rent to him on 6.9.1997, on monthly rent of Rs. 3000/-. She denied the suggestion that Jai Parkash Singh was not her tenant. She admitted that, Jai Parkash Singh had filed an injunction suit against her husband. She denied the suggestion that she had not given house in question to Jai Parkash Singh or that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. PW2 Sh S.N. Pandey deposed that he had given the house in question on rent to Jai Parkash Singh. He again submitted that in fact his wife had given the house on rent and that at that time he was also present there. He stated that the house in question was given on rent in September 1997 and since December 1997, tenant had not given the arrears of rent. During cross examination, he admitted that Jai Parkash Singh had filed a suit for permanent injunction against him, which was still pending. He admitted that in the said suit he had filed written statement. He voluntarily stated that the application was filed for impleading his wife as a party in the said suit. He admitted that in the written statement, he had admitted that Jai Parkash Singh was his tenant and volunteered to state that since his wife was owner, Jai Parkash Singh was her tenant. He admitted that in the said suit, his wife had not so far been made a party. He sated that compromise Exhibits PW2/D1 and PW2/D2 were entered into between him and Jai Parkash Singh, for getting the house in question vacated and the signatures of his wife were not on the said compromise. He denied the suggestion that he had rented out the house in question to Jai Parkash Singh or that the rate of rent was Rs. 1000/- per month. RW-1, Jai Parkash Singh deposed that he had taken the house in question on rent "from Sh. S.N. Pandey, in September 1997 @ Rs. He denied the suggestion that he had rented out the house in question to Jai Parkash Singh or that the rate of rent was Rs. 1000/- per month. RW-1, Jai Parkash Singh deposed that he had taken the house in question on rent "from Sh. S.N. Pandey, in September 1997 @ Rs. 1000/- per month. He stated that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between him and Smt. Sharda Pandey. During cross examination, he admitted that he had not tendered any arrears of rent in the present petition. He stated hat there was no written agreement- He stated Smt. Sharda Pandey is wife of Sh. S.N. Pandey. He stated that at the time when he had taken the house on rent, he had not seen the title deed as to who was the owner of the said house. He denied the suggestion that he had taken the house in question on rent from Smt. Sharda Pandey or that the rate of rent was Rs. 300/-per month. He stated that even after filing of the present petition, he had not made any inquiry as to who was the owner of the house in question. He admitted that in fact from now onwards. Smt. Sharda Pandey was owner of the house, but stated that she was not owner of the house at the time when the house was taken on rent. He stated that he was an Advocate and was in practice since 1999 and that previously he was a property dealer. He stated that besides the present ejectment petition, four other ejectment petitions were pending against him and in none of the petitions he had tendered arrears of rent. He denied the suggestion that there was any arrears of rent since December 1997 @ Rs. 3000/- per month. He also denied the suggestion that he had taken the house in question on rent from Smt. Sharda Pandey and that she was his landlady. RW2 Rajinder Kumar Dim stated that in his presence talks for taking the house in question on rent had taken place in October 1997 between Jai Parkash Singh and Sh. S.N. Pandey @ Rs. 1000/- per month. RW2 Rajinder Kumar Dim stated that in his presence talks for taking the house in question on rent had taken place in October 1997 between Jai Parkash Singh and Sh. S.N. Pandey @ Rs. 1000/- per month. During cross examination, he admitted that he knows Jai Parkash Singh for the last 10 years and he is a friend of his elder brother and that they were on visiting terms and that Jai Parkash Singh had called him on that day to give evidence in the court and that he was not a summoned witness. He stated that he knew Sh. S.N. Pandey since 1997 but he did not know the name of his wife. He stated that at the time when the house was given on rent, Smt. Sharda Pandey was not present. He stated that he had not asked Sh. S.N. Pandey as to who was the owner of the house. He denied the suggestion that the house in question was given on rent by Smt. Sharda Pandey @ Rs. 3000/- per month or that being friend he was deposing falsely. He stated that he did not know as to what was Jai Parkash Singh doing before joining the legal profession. 11. From the entire evidence led by the parties, referred to above, in my opinion, it stands fully proved on the record that Smt. Sharda Pandey was owner of the house in question, by virtue of the sale deed Exhibit Pldated 27.11.1998 and as per the allegations in the said sale deed, she was already in possession of the house. It also stands proved on the record, from the oral testimony of PW1 Smt. Sharda Pandey, that she had entered into an agreement to sell with the previous owners in June, 1991 and that on 27.11.1998, the sale deed was executed in her favour by the attorney namely Kameshwar Chaube. The oral testimony of PW1 Smt. Sharda Pandey, regarding the date of agreement in June, 1991, has not been challenged on behalf of the tenant during cross examination by giving any suggestion to the contrary. "Neither there is any rent note nor there is any receipt available on the record. On the other hand, we have the oral testimony of PW1 Smt. Sharda Pandey and PW2 Sh. S.N. Pandey that the house in question was given on rent to Jai Parkash Singh by Smt. Sharda Pandey @ Rs. "Neither there is any rent note nor there is any receipt available on the record. On the other hand, we have the oral testimony of PW1 Smt. Sharda Pandey and PW2 Sh. S.N. Pandey that the house in question was given on rent to Jai Parkash Singh by Smt. Sharda Pandey @ Rs. 3000/-per month. On the other hand we have oral testimony of AW1 Jai Parkash Singh tenant and PW2 Rajinder Kumar Dutt that the house in question was given on rent by Sh. S.N. Pandey @ Rs. 1000/- per month. 12. In my opinion, even if the talks were held by Sh. S.N. Pandey on behalf of his wife, while giving the house in question to Jai Parkash Singh, tenant it could not be said that Sh. S.N. Pandey had become landlord qua Jai Parkash Singh. Whatever Sh. S.N. Pandey had done, it was on behalf of his wife Smt. Sharda Pandey, inasmuch as there was already an agreement to sell in her favour in respect of the said house and posses-sion had already been delivered to her, in pursuance of the said agreement to sell. As referred to above, Smt. Sharda Pandey is the owner of the house in question since 27.11.1998 and the present ejectment petition was filed by her on 10.5.2000 i.e. much after she became owner of the house in question. Under these circumstances, Smt. Sharda Pandey had definitely a right to file ejectment petition against Jai Parkash Singh, tenant, seeking; his eviction from the house in question. On the facts and circumstances of the present case, in my opinion, it could not be said that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between Smt. Sharda Pandey on the one hand and Jai Parkash Singh on the other. 13. So far as the stand taken by Sh. S.N. Pandey, in the written statement filed by him in the civil suit filed by Jai Parkash Singh against him, is concerned, even if in the written statement originally filed by him, Sh. S.N. Pandey had not categorically stated that he was not landlord and his wife Smt. Sharda Pandey was landlady, even this, in my opinion, would make no difference so far as present landlady Smt. Sharda Pandey is concerned. She is not bound by the pleadings of Sh. S.N. Pandey had not categorically stated that he was not landlord and his wife Smt. Sharda Pandey was landlady, even this, in my opinion, would make no difference so far as present landlady Smt. Sharda Pandey is concerned. She is not bound by the pleadings of Sh. S.N. Pandey, in the civil suit filed by Jai Parkash Singh, especially when she herself was not a party in the said suit. Furthermore, in the said suit, Sh. S.N. Pandey had moved an application seeking amendment of the written statement so as to specifically take the plea he was not the landlord but his wife; Smt. Sharda Pandey was the landlady, being the owner. Similarly, if initially Sh. S.N. Pandey, while appearing as PW2, had stated that he had given the house in question on rent to Jai Parkash Singh, the same would make no difference, inasmuch as in the next breath Sh. S.N. Pandey had stated that in fact his wife had given the said house on rent to Jai Parkash Singh, in his presence. Furthermore, the two agreements Ex.PW2/Dl (Mark-A) and Ex.PW2/D2 (Mark-D) entered into between Jai Parkash Singh, tenant on the one hand and Sh. S.N. Pandey on the other, in my opinion, would be of no relevance and would not be sufficient to hold that in fact Sh. S.N. Pandey was the landlord and not Smt. Sharda Pandey. If Sh. S.N. Pandey had signed the writing before the police, while settling the dispute with the tenant, it could not be said that Sh. S.N. Pandey had become the landlord instead of Smt. Sharda Pandey, who is undoubtedly, owner of the house in question. In my opinion, by no stretch of imagination could it be said that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between Smt. Sharda Pandey and Jai Parkash Singh, even if Sh. S.N. Pandey, being the husband of Smt. Sharda Pandey, had held talks for giving the house in question on rent to Jai Parkash Singh, on behalf of his wife. 14. In Radha Bopa Rai v. Attna Ram Kundra, 1987(2) R.C.R. (Rent) 178 (P&H), it was held by this court, in a case under East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, that owner of the building will certainly fall within the definition of "landlord", unless his title is disputed by the person who inducted the tenant in the demised., premises. 14. In Radha Bopa Rai v. Attna Ram Kundra, 1987(2) R.C.R. (Rent) 178 (P&H), it was held by this court, in a case under East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, that owner of the building will certainly fall within the definition of "landlord", unless his title is disputed by the person who inducted the tenant in the demised., premises. In Bhagwun Singh and Ors. v. Bachittar Singh, 1981(1) Rent Law Reporter 225, it was held by a Division Bench of this Court that if a person purchases a property from another person, the tenant under the vendor becomes tenant under the vendee and there is would be relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. In Tara Chand v. Kishan Lal alias Kishan and Anr., 1984(2) R.C.R. (Rent) 57 (P&H), ejectment petition was filed by Tara Chand against Kishan Lal. Initially, Deva Ram, father of Tara Chand was landlord and by virtue of the civil court decree Tara Chand had become owner of the property in dispute. Under these circumstances, it was held by this Court that Deva Ram had ceased to be landlord and that his son Tara Charid had become owner as well as landlord of the premises in dispute. 15. In K.D. Dewan v. Harbhajan 5. Parihar, (2002-2)131 P.L.R. 682 (S.C.), it. was held by the Honble Supreme Court, while considering the provisions of East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, that the following categories of persons fall within the meaning of landlord, as defined in Section 2(c):- (i) any person for the time being entitled to receive rent in respect of any building or rented land; (ii) a trustee, etc.; (iii) a tenant who had sub-let any building or rented land in the manner authorised under the Act; and (iv) every person from time to time deriving title under a landlord. 16. It was further held in the said authority that to be a landlord within the meaning of Clause (c) of Section 2, a person need not be necessarily as owner; as in a vast majority of cases, an owner will be landlord but in may cases a person other than owner may as well be a landlord. It was further held that in a given case, landlord is also owner but a landlord under the Act need not be owner. 17. It was further held that in a given case, landlord is also owner but a landlord under the Act need not be owner. 17. In the present case, as referred to above, Smt. Sharda Pandey, having purchased the property in question from the previous owners, had become owner of the property in question. Previously, the previous owners had entered into an agreement to sell with her and had also delivered possession to her. During that period, house in question was let out to Jai Parkash Singh, and thus he became a tenant under Smt. Sharda Pandey and continued to be a tenant under her after she purchased the property, by virtue of the registered sale deed. In my opinion, her husband Sh.. S.N. Pandey cannot be termed as a landlord. As referred to above, even if the talks were held by Sh. S.N. Pandey, the same were on behalf of his wife, Smt. Sharda Pandey and under these circumstances, only Smt. Sharda Pandey would be landlord and not S.N. Pandey. The authorities Om Parkash Rahila v. Sat Pal, (1993-1)103 P.L.R. 168 (supra), Mohinder Singh v. Ram Nath, 1985(1) Rent Control Reporter 642 (supra), Kishori Lal v. Radha Rani Gupta, (1994-3)108 P.L.R. 486, Vinod B. Walia v. Avtar Singh 1984(1) Rent Control Reporter 138 (supra) and Hans Raj v. M/s Raj Iron Store, 1987(1) Rent Control Reporter 495 (supra), relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner tenant, in my opinion, would have no application to the facts of the present case, considering that the house in question was let out to the tenant on behalf of the owner and it could not be said that Smt. Sharda Pandey had no right to seek ejectment of the petitioner tenant from the demised premises. 18. In view of my detailed discussion above, I affirm the findings of the appellate authority on issues 1 and 7. 19. No other point has been urged before me in this revision petition. For the reasons recorded above, finding no merit in this revision petition the same is hereby dismissed. Revision dismissed.