Judgment V.M.Jain, J. 1. This order shall dispose of two revision petitions, bearing Civil Revision No. 466 of 1990, Parshotam Dass v. Yad Ram and Civil Revision No. 467 of 1990, Parshotam Dass v. Mool Chand, as common questions of law and fact are involved in both these petitions and in fact the appeals in both the cases were disposed of by the Appellate Authority, by a single judgment. For the purposes of convenience, the facts of Civil Revision 466 of 1990 may be referred. 2. Civil Revision 466 of 1990 has been filed by Parshotam Dass against the orders passed by the Courts below whereby the ejectment petition, filed by Parshotam Dass, petitioner, against Yad Ram, respondent, was dismissed by the Rent Controller and the Appeal, filed by him, was also dismissed by the learned Appellate Authority. 3. The facts, in brief, are that Parshotam Dass, petitioner, filed ejectment petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against Yad Ram, respondent, seeking his ejectment from the demised premises, on the ground that he (Parshotam Dass) had purchased the demised premises from its previous owner, Subhash Chander, vide registered sale deed dated 6.10.1982 and that the respondent was in occupation of a portion of the said house as a tenant, on a monthly rent of Rs. 25/-, at the time of sale and by virtue of the said sale, he became a tenant under the petitioner. It was alleged that the respondent had not paid rent to the petitioner since 6.10.1982, the date of purchase of the house by the petitioner. It was alleged that the petitioner required the premises bona fide for his personal use and occupation for his residence. It was alleged that the petitioner, his wife and three children, were residing in one room in the house, owned by the father of the petitioner, as licensees. The said petition was contested by the respondent, Yad Ram, by filing written reply, taking up the plea that Subhash Chander was not the owner of the house in the question and that he (Yad Ram) had taken the said house on rent from Laxmi Narain about 16 years ago and since then, he was regularly paying the rent to Laxmi Narain and after his death, to his widow, Smt. Chand Kaur, who was recovering the rent from him. It was alleged that he was also a tenant on the first floor of the house and Smt. Chand Kaur was receiving the rent from him. It was alleged that he had already paid the rent upto November, 1985 to Smt. Chand Kaur. It was alleged that the property had fallen to the share of Chand Kaur and this fact was told to him by Chand Kaur herself and he got it verified from the Cantonment Board records. It was alleged that at no point of time, the petitioner or Subhash Chander had claimed themselves to be the owners of the house in question and that the present ejectment petition had been filed only to harass the respondent. It was denied that the petitioner required the premises bona fide for his own use. On the pleadings of the parties, the Rent Controller framed various issues. After hearing both the sides, the learned Rent Controller dismissed the ejectment petition, holding that Subhash Chander had no title to the property in question and he could not pass on better title to Parshotam Dass, petitioner. It was further held that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and that the petition under Section 13 of the Act was liable to be dismissed. Resultantly, the ejectment petition was dismissed. The appeal, filed by Parshotam Dass, petitioner, was also dismissed by the Appellate Authority, upholding the findings of the learned Rent Controller. Dissatisfied with the same, Parshotam Das, petitioner, filed the present revision petition in this Court. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, in both these petitions and have gone through the record carefully. 5. It was submitted before me by learned counsel for the petitioner in both the petitions that the petitioner was one of the co-sharers and hence the landlord and was entitled to seek ejectment of the respondent-tenants from the house in question. Reliance was placed on the law laid down by Division Bench of this Court in the case reported as Ram Piari v. Dr. Kesho Ram, 1980(2) Rent Control Reporter 137, and Mathra Dass v. Smt. Ram Piari, 1981(2) R.C.R. (Rent) 651 (P&H) (D.B.). On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-tenant placed reliance on the law laid down by this court, in the case reported as Haraial v. Harbans Singh and Ors, (1985-1)87 Punjab Law Reporter 395. 6. Kesho Ram, 1980(2) Rent Control Reporter 137, and Mathra Dass v. Smt. Ram Piari, 1981(2) R.C.R. (Rent) 651 (P&H) (D.B.). On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-tenant placed reliance on the law laid down by this court, in the case reported as Haraial v. Harbans Singh and Ors, (1985-1)87 Punjab Law Reporter 395. 6. After hearing counsel for the parties and persuading the record, in my opinion, there is considerable force in the submissions made before me by learned counsel for the petitioner, in both the cases. Admittedly, Chuna Ram was the original owner and his name was still recorded in the house-tax assessment register, maintained by the Cantonment Board. Exs.R1 and R2 are the house-tax receipts, issued in the name of Chuna Ram. As per the case of the respondents, in both the petitions, they were inducted as tenants by Chuna Ram, the original owner. It has come in the evidence that on the death of Chuna Ram, the house in question was inherited by his sons, Jaisukh Ram and Laxmi Narain. On the death of Jaisukh Ram, his sons Kishan Chand and Siri Ram inherited the share of the property of their father, Jaisukh Ram, whereas on the death of Laxmi Narain, his widow, Smt. Chand Kaur inherited the share of Laxmi Narain. On the death of Kishan Chand, his widow, Shanti Devi and son Sohan Lal inherited the share of Kishan Chand. Smt. Shanti Devi sold a part of the property in dispute to Subhash Chander and said Subhash Chander sold the property to the present petitioner, Parshotam Dass, in both the present petitions. In this manner, Parshotam Dass, petitioner, became a co-sharer, with other persons,in the house in question, which was originally owned by Chuna Ram. Nothing has come on the record to show that the house in question was ever partitioned between the co-sharers/co-owners. 7. Smt. Chand Kaur, widow of Laxmi Narain, had appeared as RW1, in the petition Parshotam Dass v. Yad Ram. She stated that Yad Ram, respondent, was her tenant since long and that she was receiving the rent from him. She stated that the house in question was let out tc Yad Ram, respondent, by her husband and that he used to receive rent from Yad Ram and after his death, she was receiving the rent from him. She stated that Yad Ram, respondent, was her tenant since long and that she was receiving the rent from him. She stated that the house in question was let out tc Yad Ram, respondent, by her husband and that he used to receive rent from Yad Ram and after his death, she was receiving the rent from him. During cross-examination, she stated that Chuna Ram (father of her husband, Laxmi Narain) died about 30-35 years ago and that Chuna Ram had two sons, namely Jeesukh Ram and Laxmi Narain and that there were five portions of the house in question, owned by Chuna Ram. She stated that on the death of Chuna Ram, Jeesukh Ram and Laxmi Narain became the owners of the property and that Kishan Chand and Siri Ram were the sons of Jeesukh Ram, who died about 15/16 years ago. She stated that Siri Ram was alive and that Kishan Chand died about 20/25 years ago and Smt. Shanti Devi was the widow of Kishan Chand. She stated that Chuna Ram had himself partitioned the property during his life-time, but she did not know whether there was any writing regarding the partition or not. She stated that the house in question had fallen to the share of her husband, Laxmi Narain, during the life-time of Chuna Ram. She stated that the property in question was in the name of Chuna Ram as also her husband (Laxmi Narain) in the record of the Cantonment Board. She denied the suggestion that the property in dispute was never partitioned during the life-time of Chuna Ram or that the property in question had not come to the share of her husband, Laxmi Narain. She denied the suggestion that after the death of Chuna Ram, Jeesukh Ram and his son Kishan Chand and Kishan Chands widow, Shanti Devi were in possession of the property in question or were receiving the rent from the tenants, including the respondents. She stated that she did not know whether Smt. Shanti Devi, widow of Kishan Chand, had sold the property in question to Subhash Chander. She denied the suggestion that the property in question was not let out by Laxmi Narain to Yad Ram or that Laxmi Narain never received the rent frorn Yad Ram. She stated that she did not know whether Smt. Shanti Devi, widow of Kishan Chand, had sold the property in question to Subhash Chander. She denied the suggestion that the property in question was not let out by Laxmi Narain to Yad Ram or that Laxmi Narain never received the rent frorn Yad Ram. She admitted that previously, Sohan Lal, son of Kishan Chand, used to receive the rent of the premises in question from Yad Ram and Mool Chand (respondents). She stated that she had been receiving the rent from Yad Ram and Mahla Ram, for the last 7-8 years and prior thereto, Kishan Chand used to receive the rent. She stated that she had not received the rent from Yad Ram and Mahla Ram, prior to 7-8 years back. 8. Yad Ram, respondent, appeared in the witness box as RW2 and deposed that he had taken the house in question on rent from Laxmi Narain and that Chand Kaur was the widow of Laxmi Narain. She stated that he used to pay rent to Laxmi Narain and Chand Kaur and used to receive the, receipts from them. During cross-examination, he stated that he had taken the demised premises on rent from Laxmi Narain about 17 years ago and no writing was made at that time. He stated that Laxmi Narain died about 7-8 years ago and that he was not possessed of any receipt issued by Laxmi Narain. He stated that he did not know if Kishan Chand had sold the demised premises to Subhash Chander. He stated that he had never paid rent to Kishan Chand, son of Jeesukh. He stated that Kishan Chand was dead. He stated that he had not seen or known Smt. Shanti Devi, widow of Kishan Chand. He stated that he did not know whether Shanti Devi sold the demised premises to Subhash Chander. He stated that he had never paid rent to Subhash Chander. 9. From a perusal of the statement of RW1, Chand Kaur, and RW2, Yad Ram, tenant, it would be clear that the story put-forth by the respondent that he had taken the house in question on rent from Laxmi Narain and used to pay the rent to Laxmi Narain and thereafter to his widow, Chand Kaur, is not proved on the record. Initially, RW1, Chand Kaur, had stated that her husband Laxmi Narain used to receive rent from Yad Ram and after his death, she had been receiving rent from him. However, during cross-examination, she stated that previously Sohan Lal, son of Kishan Chand, used to receive rent of the demised premises, from Yad Ram and Mahla Ram, respondents and that she was receiving the rent from Yad Ram and Mahla Ram, prior to 7-8 years ago. In the light of the admission made by RW1, Chand Kaur, it could not be said that the house hi question was let out by Laxmi Narain or that Laxmi Narain used to receive the rent from Yad Ram and Mahla Ram, respondents, This is especially so, when Yad Ram, respondent, failed to produce any writing, executed by Laxmi Narain and also failed to produce any receipt issued by Laxmi Narain, in this regard. In fact, as referred to above, RW1, Chand Kaur, admitted that prior to her, Sohan Lal, son of Kishan Chand, used to receive the rent and now for the last 7-8 years, she had been receiving the rent from the respondent. It has also come in the statement of RW1, Chand Kaur, that Smt. Shanti Devi is the widow of Kishan Chand, aforesaid. Under these circumstances, if Shanti Devi had sold the house in question to Subhash Chand and Subhash Chand had sold the same to Parshotam Dass, petitioner, it could not be said that the petitioner had no concern with the property in question. It was on 16.12.1980 that Subhash Chander had purchased the property in question from Shanti Devi and thereafter, he had sold the same to Parshotam Dass, petitioner, vide sale deed, Ex.P1. The statement of RW1, Chand Kaur, was recorded on 5.10.1987. In the said statement, she had stated that she had been receiving the rent from Yad Ram and Mahla Ram for the last 7-8 years and prior thereto, Sohan Lal and Kishan Chand used to receive the rent. As referred to above, said Shanti Devi is the widow of Kishan Chand. In the said statement, she had stated that she had been receiving the rent from Yad Ram and Mahla Ram for the last 7-8 years and prior thereto, Sohan Lal and Kishan Chand used to receive the rent. As referred to above, said Shanti Devi is the widow of Kishan Chand. If Kishan Chand had been recovering the rent from the tenants and his widow, Smt. Shanti Devi, had soid the house to Subhash Chander on 6.12.1980 and Subhash Chander sold the same to Parshotam Dass, petitioner on 6.10.1982, vide sale deed, Ex.PI, in my opinion, it would be clear that Parshotam Dass, petitioner, was not only a co-sharer, but was also entitled to receive the rent from the respondent, who was a tenant in the house in question. The assertion of RW2, Yad Ram, respondent, that he used to pay the rent only to Laxmi Narain and thereafter to Chand Kaur, cannot be accepted in view of the admission made by RW1, Chand Kaur herself. Furthermore, there is nothing on the record to show that the house in question was ever partitioned between the co-sharers. 10. In Ram Piar v. Dr. Kesho Ram, 1980(2) R.C.R. 137 (supra), a Division Bench of this Court, while placing reliance on the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court, in the case reported as Smt. Kanta Goel v. B.P. Pathak and Ors, A.I.R. 1977 S.C. 1959, had held that where a landlord, who had let out the premises, dies and his heirs succeed to his estate, one co-heir to whom the rent is being paid by the tenant and who receives it on behalf of the estate, would be landlord for the purposes of the Act. It was further held that co-heirs functioned for all practical purposes as the landlord and was, therefore, entitled to institute proceedings for eviction against the tenant qua the landlord. In Mathura Dass v. Smt. Ram Piari. 1981(2) R.C.R. (Rent) 651 (supra), another Division Bench of this court had held that the definition of landlord positively visualises a plurality thereof. It was farther held that the requirement was not that of the landlord who moved an application for ejectment and that an ejectment petition by one of the many landlords would be maintainable, apart from other considerations. 1981(2) R.C.R. (Rent) 651 (supra), another Division Bench of this court had held that the definition of landlord positively visualises a plurality thereof. It was farther held that the requirement was not that of the landlord who moved an application for ejectment and that an ejectment petition by one of the many landlords would be maintainable, apart from other considerations. The Division Bench of this Court had placed reliance on the law laid down by the Honble Supreme Court, in Smt. Kanta Gaels case (supra). It was further held that even one of the many co-landlords can singly maintain an application for ejectment against his tenant under the Rent Act. 11. The authority Hardial v. Harbans Singh, (1985)87 P.L.R. 395 (supra) relied upon by learned counsel for the respondent-tenants, in my opinion, would not apply to the facts of the present case, in view of the law laid down by the Honble Supreme Court and by Division Bench of this Court, in the cases referred to above. In the reported case, the tenants were not inducted by the vendor of the landlord and were inducted by other co-sharers. However, the facts of the present case are entirely different, inasmuch as in the present case, it has come on the record that Kishan Chand and Sohan Lal used to recover rent from the tenants, including Yad Ram and that Smt. Shanti Devi, widow of Kishan Chand, had sold the property in question to Subhash Chander, who sold the same to the present petitioner, Parshotam Dass. Under these circumstances, it could not be said that the present petition, filed by Parshotam Dass, was not maintainable nor could it be said that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. 12. In the other case, titled as Parshotam Dass v. Moot Chand @ Mahla Ram, Smt. Chand Kaur had appeared in the witness box as RW1 and made a similar statement as made by her in the other case, Parshotam Dass v. Yad Ram. 12. In the other case, titled as Parshotam Dass v. Moot Chand @ Mahla Ram, Smt. Chand Kaur had appeared in the witness box as RW1 and made a similar statement as made by her in the other case, Parshotam Dass v. Yad Ram. Mool Chand @ Mahla Ram appeared in the witness box as RW4 and deposed that he had taken the demised premises on rent from Chuna Ram, even before the creation of Pakistan and that Chuna Ram had died and after the death of Chuna Ram, he became tenant under Laxmi Narain, son of Chuna Ram, and that on the death of Laxmi Narain, he started paying rent to Chand Kaur. He stated that he never paid rent to Subhash Chander or Parshotam Dass. During cross-examination, he stated that Jee-sukh was one of the sons of Chuna Ram, who had pre-deceased Chuna Ram and that he did now know whether Kishan Chand was one of the sons of Jeesukh. He stated that he knew Shanti Devi, but he did not know whether Shanti Devi was the widow of Kishan Chand. He stated that no writing was executed at the time of creation of the tenancy. He denied the suggestion that he was a tenant under Parshotam Dass, petitioner. 13. Thus, from the evidence, led by the respondent-tenant, in the other petition, it could not be said that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. This is especially so, when even according to RW4, Mool Chand, respondent, he had taken the premises on rent from Chuna Ram and the present petitioner, Parshotam Dass, had purchased the property from Subhash Chander, who had purchased the same from Shanti Devi, widow of Kishan Chand, son of Jeesukh son of Chuna Ram and was, thus, proved to be one of the co-owners of the house in question. 14. In view of my detailed discussion above, in my opinion, Courts below had erred in law in holding that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, in both the petitions. Accordingly, I reverse the findings of the Courts below on issue No. 1, in both the petitions. 15. The learned Appellate Authority, in both the cases, had already held that the petitioner-landlord, Parshotam Dass, required the demised premises, in both the petitions, bona fide, for his personal use and occupation, for the purposes of residence. Accordingly, I reverse the findings of the Courts below on issue No. 1, in both the petitions. 15. The learned Appellate Authority, in both the cases, had already held that the petitioner-landlord, Parshotam Dass, required the demised premises, in both the petitions, bona fide, for his personal use and occupation, for the purposes of residence. Neither any revision/cross objections were filed nor any arguments have been raised before me by learned counsel for the respondents, challenging the findings of the appellate authority, in both the petitions, in this regard. Thus, it stands proved on the record that the petitioner-landlord required the premises bona fide for his personal use and occupation for his residence, in both the cases. 16. In view of the above, both the petitions, are allowed, the orders, passed by the courts below, in both the petitions, dismissing the ejectment petitions, are set aside and the ejectment orders are passed in favour of the petitioner against the respondents, in both the petitions. However, there shall be no orders as to costs. 17. Respondents are allowed two months time in each of the two petitions, to vacate the demised premises.