JUDGMENT 1. - Both the Court below concurrently held that at this stage plaintiff could not prove relationship of landlord and tenant between plaintiff and defendant, therefore, rent cannot be determined. 2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that approach of the Courts below was absolutely erroneous and contrary to the settled position of law and the judgment of this Court delivered in case of Om Prakash v. Gajanand & Ors., WLC (Raj) UC 58 , wherein this Court has taken a view that the expression, 'land lord' used under Section 3 (iii) of the Rent Act does include owner within its ambit as the ownership to the premises cannot be subject matter of the tenancy. 3. I have perused the reasons given by the Courts below in the impugned order dated 22.10.01 and 07.3.03. The facts reveals that the plaintiff himself filed the suit stating therein that the premises In dispute was originally taken on rent by the firm in which the plaintiff and defendant both were tenants. Subsequently the partnership was dissolved and firm remained with the plaintiff. The plaintiff let out the part of the shop measuring 10/30 feet as that portion was lying vacant and it was decided that the defendant shall continue and this portion will be kept for the business of the defendant. Defendant thereafter in different name started cloth business. According to the plaintiff, defendant agreed to pay Rs. 2,300/- as rent to the plaintiff and in fact he paid the rent Rs. 2,300/- per month by Cheque. 4. The defendant submitted that the premises in dispute was taken on rent by the endant himself from the owner of the property after paying Rs. 1,50,000/- as security which is lying with the original land lord. After taking on rent the premises by the defendant, plaintiff and defendant decided to start business in partnership and, relation of the rent note was executed in the name firm. The defendant denied the relation of the land lord and tenant between plaintiff and defendant and denied the payment of Rs. 2,300/- as rent to the plaintiff. 5. It is true that the First Appellate Court observed about owner-ship of the property t this fact is required to be read in context in which it has been referred. The question landlord and owner of the property are separate matter. 2,300/- as rent to the plaintiff. 5. It is true that the First Appellate Court observed about owner-ship of the property t this fact is required to be read in context in which it has been referred. The question landlord and owner of the property are separate matter. A person may not be owner till he may be land lord qua the tenant in possession. A owner may also be landlord. The definition of the land lord given in the Rent Act Includes very many other persons so for the purpose of treating them as a landlord under the act. The fact remains is that both the Courts below at this stage on the basis of the background of the facts found Hat relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and the defendant is missing. In fact the controversy is with respect to the nature of possession of the defendant, whether defendant is still tenant of the owner of the property of tenant of plaintiff and in that context the Courts below also observed that the plaintiff even not be treated as a person authorised to receive rent on behalf of original owner. 6. In these fact and circumstances and looking to the back ground of claim of original tenancy by both the parties, at this stage, on the basis of the material and the pleadings the Courts below have recorded only prima facie finding about the absence relation-ship of the landlord and tenant and decided it against the land-lord plaintiff, my opinion order cannot be faulted. 7. I do not find any reason for exercising the power under Section 115 C.P.C. to interfere in the order. Therefore, the Revision Petition is dismissed.Revision Petition dismissed. *******