ORDER 1. The respondent tenant has died and is represented by his legal heirs. The legal heirs, though noticed, have not chosen to appear and contest the appeal. 2. The suit properties are the residential premises bearing No. 135, Ward No. 1 within the limits of Daund Municipal Corporation in the State of Maharashtra. Proceedings in the courts below have proceeded on the premise that the provisions of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (for short "the Act") are applicable to the suit premises. The appellant initiated proceedings for the eviction of the tenant on the grounds available under clauses (k) and (1) of sub-section (1) of Section 13 of the Act pleading that the premises have not been used for residential purpose for which they were let for a continuous period of six months immediately preceding the date of the suit and that the respondent after coming into operation of the Act had built or acquired vacant possession of suitable residence. 3. The trial court and the appellate court found the ground for eviction having been made out and hence directed that decree for recovery of possession of the premises be passed. The tenant filed a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution in the High Court. The High Court has allowed the petition and directed the suit to be dismissed forming an opinion that the appellant (that is, the respondent in the High Court) was not a landlord entitled to file the suit for recovery of possession. 4. The concurrent finding arrived at by the courts below is that the appellant had been receiving the rent from the tenant throughout and the tenant was treating the appellant herein as the landlord. The suit premises were owned by one Manik Singh who has expired and is survived by his widow Shobha Bai and two minor children. The appellant is the brother of late Manik Singh. Shobha Bai entered the witness box and stated that it was the appellant who was managing the property on her behalf and collecting the rent. The tenant too admitted that he had been paying the rent to the appellant. 5. The term "landlord" has been defined in clause (3) of Section 5 of the Act. Shobha Bai entered the witness box and stated that it was the appellant who was managing the property on her behalf and collecting the rent. The tenant too admitted that he had been paying the rent to the appellant. 5. The term "landlord" has been defined in clause (3) of Section 5 of the Act. "[A]ny person who is for the time being, receiving, or entitled to receive, rent in respect of any premises whether on his own account or on account, or on behalf, or for the benefit of any other person" is also included in the definition of "landlord". This definition of "landlord" has been overlooked by the High Court. 6. We are of the opinion that the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution ought not to have interfered with the findings arrived at by the two courts below and then recorded a finding of its own holding that the appellant is not the landlord which finding is also inconsistent with the definition of "landlord" in clause (3) of Section 5 of the a Act. The finding of the High Court cannot be countenanced. 7. The appeal is allowed. The judgment of the High Court is set aside and the decree of the trial court as upheld by the appellate court is restored. There will be no order as to costs.