Judgment Govind Mathur, J.-This special appeal under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance is preferred by the appellant (plaintiff) National Engineering Industry Ltd., Jaipur assailing validity and propriety of the Judgment dated 23.08.2001 passed by learned Single Bench in S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 147/1993 titled as Rishab Chand Bhandari & Anr. vs. M/s National Engineering Industry Ltd. Learned Single Judge by Judgment dated 23.08.2001 set aside the Judgment and decree dated 31.07.1993 passed by learned Additional District Judge No. 5, Jaipur City, Jaipur and dismissed the plaintiff s suit bearing No. 134/1980. 2. The facts giving rise to present special appeal are as follows:- 3. Plaintiff M/s National Engineering Industry Ltd., Jaipur instituted a suit in the Court of learned District Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur against defendant M/s. M.P. Film Exchange Pvt. Ltd., Indore and Shri Rishab Chand Bhandari for eviction of suit property described in para 2 of the suit and for recovery of arrears of rent. 4. The plaintiff based its suit on the facts that defendant No. 2 Shri Rishab Chand Bhandari in his capacity as Director of M/s M.P. Film Exchange Pvt. Ltd. (defendant No. 1) executed a rent note on 23.07.1963 in respect of the property described in para 2 of the plaint. The aforesaid premises was given on rent to the defendant No. 1 at the rent of Rs. 225/-per month w.e.f. 20.07.1963 for a period of 11 months. 5. It was averred in the plaint that the suit property is part of "Pilani Bhawan" situated at Mirza Ismile Road, Jaipur and belongs to Seeta Ram Bhandar. The plaintiff on behalf of Seeta Ram Bhandar let out the said property to defendant No. 1 for its use through defendant No. 2. The defendant No. 1 continued to make payment of rent till August 31, 1975 and thereafter stopped making payment of monthly rent and as such committed default in payment of rent. The plaintiff alleged for continuous default on part of defendants and, therefore, sought a decree for eviction. 6. The plaintiff also averred that the suit premises was given on rent to the defendant No. 1 for specific purpose i.e., for carrying out its business. The plaintiff alleged for continuous default on part of defendants and, therefore, sought a decree for eviction. 6. The plaintiff also averred that the suit premises was given on rent to the defendant No. 1 for specific purpose i.e., for carrying out its business. However, the purpose for which this suit premises was let out was no more in existence for the reason that the defendant No. 1 has closed its business at Jaipur from last number of years and, therefore, the plaintiff company is entitled to get evicted the defendants on the ground of change of use for purpose of which the premises in question was rented out. It was also stated in the plaint that as the defendant company (M/s. M.P. Film Exchange Pvt. Ltd.) has closed its business at Jaipur and it has given the suit premises to defendant No. 2 Shri Rishab Chand Bhandari and the same is subletting of the premises concerned and, therefore, on this count the plaintiff is entitled to get a decree for eviction of the suit premises. 7. The plaintiff also averred that the defendants breached the terms of tenancy inasmuch as the defendant No. 2 has been using the property for his residential purpose whereas the property was taken on rent for carrying out business of defendant No. 1 i.e., M/s. M.P. Film Exchange Pvt. Ltd. The defendant No. 2 while having possession of the suit premises made material alterations in the property in question by constructing a toilet and bathroom at the roof without seeking any permission by the plaintiff . 8. A notice was served upon the defendants by the plaintiff company on 22.03.1978 through its advocate stating therein to vacate the disputed property either within a period of one month from the date of receipt of notice or form the date the defendants treat the tenancy reached to an end. The notice given by the plaintiff was not accepted by the defendant No. 2 and, therefore, according to the plaintiff the same is required to be deemed to be served under the law. On the above premises the plaintiff company sought a decree for eviction against the defendants from the rented premises and for handing over its vacant possession. The plaintiff also prayed for a decree of Rs. 8,466.20 against arrears of rent and house tax. 9. On the above premises the plaintiff company sought a decree for eviction against the defendants from the rented premises and for handing over its vacant possession. The plaintiff also prayed for a decree of Rs. 8,466.20 against arrears of rent and house tax. 9. A written statement was filed by the defendant No. 1 admitting the fact that the property in question was taken on rent by it through the defendant No. 2. Defendant Rishab Chand Bhandari also submitted a written statement admitting execution of rent note dated 23.07.1963. It was also averred in the written statement that Shri Ram Das Modani was collecting rent in the name of plaintiff and subsequently he started giving receipts of rent in the name of Seeta Ram Bhandar. It was also stated in the written statement filed on behalf of Shri Rishab Chand Bhandari that he is the tenant as he was residing in the suit premises with his family from inception. He denied subletting of the suit premises and also stated that the construction which is termed as material alteration in the suit premises by the plaintiff was done with permission of Shri Ram Das Modani. It was also alleged that the plaintiff terminated the relationship with the defendant No. 2 in the year 1975 as it was convenyed to him that the rent is further required to be paid to Seeta Ram Bhandar and, therefore, Shri Ram Das Modani started taking rent form the defendant No. 2 in name of Seeta Ram Bhandar. It was also stated that defendant No. 2 was not the tenant of plaintiff but of Seeta Ram Bhandar. 10. On basis of pleadings of the parties learned Additional District Judge No. 5, Jaipur City, Jaipur while adjudicating the suit framed 10 issues including the issue with regard to relief . It was also stated that defendant No. 2 was not the tenant of plaintiff but of Seeta Ram Bhandar. 10. On basis of pleadings of the parties learned Additional District Judge No. 5, Jaipur City, Jaipur while adjudicating the suit framed 10 issues including the issue with regard to relief . The issues so framed by the learned Additional District Judge No. 5, Jaipur City, Jaipur are as under : Þ1& vk;k lhrkjke Hk.M+kj dh vksj ls oknh dEiuh dks nkok ykus dk vf /kdkj gS \ 2& vk;k oknh ,d jftLVMZ dEiuh gS \ 3& vk;k izfroknhx.k us fdjk;sdh vnk;xh esasa fof /kd pwd dh gS ALr ifjlj izfroknh la[;k 1 us izfroknh la[;k 2 ds mi;ksLr ifjlj 4& vk;k oknxzx ds fy;s oknxzfdjk; s ij fy;s Fks\ 5& vk;k izfroknha la[;k 1 us oknxzj vc Lr ifjlj vius O;olk; ds fy;s fdjk;s ij fy;s Fks vkSizfroknh la[;k 1 dk O;olk; rhu lky ls cUn gS vkSj izfroknh la[;k 2 mlesa fuokl dj jgk gSA vr% oknh bl vk/kkj ij ifjlj [kkyh djokus dk vf /kdkjh gS \ 6& vk;k izfroknh la 1 us izfroknh la 2 dks oknxzV] ikVZfoFk itsku ;k vlkbZu dj Lr edku lcysfn;s g]Svr% oknh ifjlkj [kkyh djokus dk vf /kdkjh gS \ 7& vk;k izfroknh us ifjlj esa rkfRod ifjorZu dj fn; sgS\froknh la 2 us oknxzLr ifjlj vius mi;ks 8& vk;k izx ds fy;s fdjk;s ij fy;s Fks vkSj izfroknh la 1 us viuh dEiuh dk Mk;jsDVj gksus ds ukrs tqykbZ] 1969 rd gh izfroknh laa 2 ds fy;s fdjk;k vnk fd;k Fkk \ 9& vk;k izfroknh la- 1 okn esa vuko;d i{kdkj gS \ 10& vuqrks"k Aß 11. The parties to the suit led evidence before the learned trial Court. M/s. Devkinandan, Ramniwas, Shiv Kumar Parwal and Pradeep Kumar Rungta were produced as prosecution witnesses and five documents were exhibited as Ex. 1 to Ex. 5. The defendant No. 1 examined DW. 1 Devi Singh and defendant No. 2 himself . Shri Sanwar Chand and Shri Manak Lal Kanungo were examined by the trial Court as DW. 1 and DW. 2 respectivley. The defendant No. 2 also produced documents Ex. A/1 to Ex. A/21 to substantiate the pleadings made in the written statement. 12. Learned trial Court after recording evidence and hearing Counsel for all the parties decided all issues in favour of plaintiff . 1 and DW. 2 respectivley. The defendant No. 2 also produced documents Ex. A/1 to Ex. A/21 to substantiate the pleadings made in the written statement. 12. Learned trial Court after recording evidence and hearing Counsel for all the parties decided all issues in favour of plaintiff . The trial Court accordingly decreed the suit by Judgment and decree dated 31.07.1993. By decree dated 31.07.1993 the defendants were directed to pay a sum of Rs. 8466.20 to the plaintiff as arrears of rent and further to hand over vacant possession of the suit property to the plaintiff within a period of two months. It was also ordered that the defendant shall pay rent @ Rs. 225/-per month in addition to house tax alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till possession is handed over. 13. The defendants being aggrieved by the Judgment and decree dated 31.07.1993 passed by Additional District Judge No. 5, Jaipur City, Jaipur preferred regular first appeal under Section 96 read with Order 41 Rule 1, CPC before the learned Single Bench of this Court. Learned Single Judge after hearing the rival contentions of the parties framed five questions for adjudication of the appeal. The questions framed by the learned Single Judge are as follows:- "(i) whether the defendants have failed to pay or tender the amount of rent due from him for six months as required under Section 13(1)(a) of the Act and thus, committed default ? (ii) Whether the defendant No. 1 has, without the permission of the land lord made or permitted to be made any such construction, thereby materially altered the premises or has diminished the value thereof ? (iii) Whether the defendant No. 1 has done any act inconsistent with the purpose for which he was admitted to the tenancy of the premises or which is likely to adversely and substantially affecty the landlords interest, and that he used the premises for the purpose other than the purpose for which it was let out for a continuous period of six months immediately preceding the date of suit, thereby giving the plaintiff one of the grounds to claim eviction , namely the change of user and non-user of the rented premises ? (iv) Whether the tenant has assigned, sub let or otherwise parted with the possession of whole or any part of the premises without the permission of the landlord? And, (v) Whether the tenant has renounced his character as such or denied the title of the landlord ? 14. Learned Single Bench before adjudicating five questions referred above considered it appropriate to decide the question as to who was the landlord of the suit property in view of the definition of term landlord as prescribed in Sub-clause (iii) of Section 3 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1950"). Learned Single Judge held that Seeta Ram Bhandar being owner of the suit premises was landlord of the suit premises as defined in the Act. The finding given by the learned Single Judge in this regard is worth to be noticed and, therefore, the same is reproduced below:- "Since, it is an admitted position that Sita Ram Bhandar is the owner of the suit premises and the plaintiff respondent let out the suit premises in his capacity as an agent of Sita Ram Bhandar and as such the plaintiff was also accountable to the trust for the rent realised by it from the defendants. Sita Ram Bhandar Trust was entitled to receive rent and in fact Ram Das Modani, a representative of the Trust collected the rent from the defendants and hence in the light of the law propounded in the case of Mada Lal vs. Hazara Singh (Delhi) (Supra) and in the case of Smt. Ram Piari vs. M/s. Delhi Fruit Company and Ors. (Supra), and in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, it is held that Sita Ram Bhandar is also landlord. The suit premises were let out by the plaintiff respondent in his capacity as an agent of Sita Ram Bhandar Trust. Sita Ram Bhandar Trust is the landlord as defined in the Act as the Trust is entitled to receive the rent from the defendants." 15. It is pertinent to note here that learned Single Judge held Seeta Ram Bhandar as landlord in peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case. 16. Learned Single Judge after reaching at the conclusion that Seeta Ram Bhandar is also a landlord of the suit premises decided the five questions framed to adjudicate the appeal. It is pertinent to note here that learned Single Judge held Seeta Ram Bhandar as landlord in peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case. 16. Learned Single Judge after reaching at the conclusion that Seeta Ram Bhandar is also a landlord of the suit premises decided the five questions framed to adjudicate the appeal. Learned Single Judge held that Shri Ram Das Modani was the person authorised to collect rent from all the tenants on behalf of Seeta Ram Bhandar and he used to issue rent receipts. Learned Single Judge on the basis of the documents Ex. A/3, Ex.A/4, Ex.A/5 and Ex.A/7 reached at the conclusion that no decree of eviction could have been passed on the ground of default in view of documents referred above. 17. Learned Single Judge also held that the material alteration as alleged in the plaint was made on basis of the permission given by Shri Ram Das Modani acting on behalf of Seeta Ram Bhandar, therefore, no decree for eviction on that count also could have been issued by the trial Court. The learned Single Judge further held that the suit premises was taken on rent by M/s. M.P. Film Exchange through Shri Rishab Chand Bhandari on 23.07.1963 by executing a rent note which no where mentions that the premises shall be used by M/s. M.P. Film Exchange for its business purposes. Learned Single Judge on basis of averment made in the rent note that if any neighbour feels aggrieved by their living style the food habits then the plaintiff shall be entitled to get the premises vacated held that the premises was rented out for residential purpose. The Court below, therefore, reached at the conclusion that, therefore, no change of the purpose for which the premises was rented to be used. 18. The question with regard to subletting of the suit premises by M/s. M.P. Film Exchange Pvt. Ltd to Shri Rishab Chand Bhandari was also negativated by learned Single Judge on the ground that Shri Rishab Chand Bhandari since inception of tenancy was residing in the suit premises. 19. 18. The question with regard to subletting of the suit premises by M/s. M.P. Film Exchange Pvt. Ltd to Shri Rishab Chand Bhandari was also negativated by learned Single Judge on the ground that Shri Rishab Chand Bhandari since inception of tenancy was residing in the suit premises. 19. The question No. 5 to the effect that the tenant has renounced his character or denied the title of the landlord was also decided by learned Single Judge by holding that the defendant No. 2 admitted Seeta Ram Bhandar Trust as owner of the suit property and plaintiff company as an agent of Seeta Ram Bhandar Trust, therefore, there was no deliberate denial of title of the landlord by the tenant amounting to forfeiture or disclaimer for which the defendant may incur liability to eviction under Section 13(1)(f) of the Act of 1950. 20. On basis of these findings learned Single Judge accepted the appeal and set aside the Judgment and decree dated 31.07.1993. The appellant plaintiff being aggrieved by the Judgment passed by learned Single Judge preferred the present special appeal before this Court. 21. We have heard Counsel for the parties and also scanned the record. 22. As stated above, learned Single Judge instead of adjudicating dispute on basis of issues framed by trial Court chose to frame five independent issues related to the controversy. Learned Single Judge before adjudicating the above referred five questions decided the question as to whom can be termed as landlord under the Act of 1950. The question pertaining to the landlord was decided by the learned Single Judge as under the Act of 1950 the grounds for eviction from the premises are available to a landlord. Learned Single Judge in peculiar facts and circumstances of the case held Seeta Ram Bhandar also a landlord in the present case. .23. The contention of the Counsel for the plaintiff appellant is that the learned Single Judge while adjudicating the question with regard to definition of a landlord as prescribed under Sub-clause (iii) of Section 3 of the Act of 1950 erred in holding that the owner of the premises is also included in the meaning of the word "Landlord". .24. .23. The contention of the Counsel for the plaintiff appellant is that the learned Single Judge while adjudicating the question with regard to definition of a landlord as prescribed under Sub-clause (iii) of Section 3 of the Act of 1950 erred in holding that the owner of the premises is also included in the meaning of the word "Landlord". .24. The term "Landlord" is defined under Section 3(iii) of the Act of 1950 as under:-"(iii) "landlord" means any person who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of any premises, whether on his own account or as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver or any other person or who would be receive or be entitled to receive the rent if the premises were let to a tenant; it includes a tenant in relation to a sub-tenant ." 25. Learned Single Judge while including the "owner" within the term "landlord" as defined under Section 3(iii) of the Act of 1950 much relief upon Single Bench Judgment of Delhi High Court in the case of Shri Madanlal vs. Shri Hazara Singh, reported in 1977 (2) RLR 641. In the aforesaid case learned Single Bench of Delhi High Court held that the definition of term "landlord" is quite wide and it covers a person who is entitled to receive the rent but that does not mean that it take away the ordinary meaning of the word "Landlord". Learned Single Judge also relied upon an another Single Bench Judgment of Punjab & Haryana High Corut in case of Smt. Ram Pyari vs. M/s. Delhi Fruit Company & Ors., reported in 1980 (1) RLR 512, which is based upon the law laid down in the case of Madan Lal (Supra). In our considered opinion when a term has been defined under a statute then for the purpose of interpreting and adjudicating the questions arising out of the enactment concerned the Court is required to confine itself within the definitions prescribed under that enactment itself . It is open for the Court to interpret a term on basis of its ordinary meaning or dictionary meaning if the term is not defined under the concerned enactment itself . However, when and where the term is defined in the Act itself then there is no need to borrow the definition of the term from dictionaries or by their ordinary meaning. However, when and where the term is defined in the Act itself then there is no need to borrow the definition of the term from dictionaries or by their ordinary meaning. The legislature provides definition of a term in the enactment concerned to interpret the provisions of that enactment in the light of definition given in the statute itself . Interpretation of the term which has already been defined under the enactment cannot be interpreted on basis of dictionary meanings or by ordinary meanings in normal course as it may lead to an interpretation beyond the intentions of the legislature. Accordingly we are in total disagreement with the Judgment s referred above. 26. The term "landlord" as defined under the Act of 1950 prescribes that any person for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of any premises whether on his own account or as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver or any other person or who would so receive or be entitled to receive the rent if the premises were let to a tenant and it also includes a tenant in relation to a sub tenant. From perusal of the definition of the term landlord it is abundantly clear that the condition precedent for being a landlord is that the person must be entitled for the time being to receive rent of any premises. If a person fails to prove his entitlement to receive the rent of the premises for the time being then according to the definition referred above he cannot be treated as a landlord. 27. It is well settled that a suit for eviction is filed by a landlord against his tenant with whom a contract of tenancy exists. Under the Act of 1950 the question of ownership is not required to be decided. Only the rights and liabilities of the landlord and tenant are to be decided. The element of ownership of the premises is not a characteristic of a landlord but it is receipt of the rent or right to receive the rent which is dominating factor within the meaning of Section 3(iii) of the Act of 1950. The expression "landlord" used under the Act of 1950 does not include owner within its ambit as the ownership of the premises cannot be subject matter of tenancy. The expression "landlord" used under the Act of 1950 does not include owner within its ambit as the ownership of the premises cannot be subject matter of tenancy. In the present case the rent note was executed between the plaintiff appellant and the respondent No. 1 and, therefore, the plaintiff appellant is the sole landlord of the suit premises. Seeta Ram Bhandar has been wrongly treated as landlord by the learned Single Judge for the purpose of adjudicating the suit for eviction from premises. 28. Learned Single Judge also held Ram Das Modani a person authorised to receive rent on behalf of Seeta Ram Bhandar. This finding is given by learned Single Judge on basis of the documents Exs. A/3, A/4, A/5 and A/7. The documents Exs. A/3, A/4 and A/5 are receipts signed by Ram Das Modani on the letter pads of Seeta Ram Bhandar with regard to acceptance of rent from Shri Rishab Chand Bhandari. Ex. A/7 is bank receipt whereby an amount of Rs. 2,151.50 was deposited in the account of Seeta Ram Bhandar on 10.02.1978. On the back of receipt Shri Ram Das Modani has said to put his signatures. Learned Single Judge held that these documents have not been taken into consideration by the trial Court. Learned Single Judge on basis of these documents held Shri Ram Das Modani as a person authorised to receive rent on behalf of Seeta Ram Bhandar from Shri Rishab Chand Bhandari. As stated above, all the documents referred above are signed by Shri Ram Das Modani. Shri Ram Das Modani did not come before the trial Court to depose and prove these documents. Genuineness of these documents could have been established by Shri Ram Das Modani being said to be author of the documents. Be that as it may, the existence of these documents in no case proves entitlement of Shri Ram Das Modani to receive rent form Shri Rishab Chand Bhandari on behalf of Seeta Ram Bhandar. Defendant Rishab Chand Bhandari never entered into a direct tenancy with Seeta Ram Bhandar, therefore, the entire matter is required to be adjudicated on basis of rent note which is available on record as Ex. 2. the rent note Ex. Defendant Rishab Chand Bhandari never entered into a direct tenancy with Seeta Ram Bhandar, therefore, the entire matter is required to be adjudicated on basis of rent note which is available on record as Ex. 2. the rent note Ex. 2 was between the plaintiff and M/s. M.P. Film Exchange Pvt. Ltd. (defendant No. 1), therefore, it can be conveniently said that Shri Ram Das Modani is a stranger in the dispute. No cognizance of the receipts said to be issued by him can be taken into consideration while adjudicating the present suit. 29. As we have held that the plaintiff appellant is required to be treated as sole landlord of the suit premises, other questions formulated by learned Single Judge are to be examined in that light. 30. Learned Single Judge while dealing with issue with regard to default in payment of rent reached at the conclusion that the plaintiff failed to make any averment in the plaint in consonance with the provisions of Section 13(i)(a) of the Act of 1950 and, therefore, no decree for eviction could be issued. Learned Single Judge reached at the finding above on the count that there is no averment in the plaint that tenant neither paid nor tendered the rent as required under Section 13(i) (a) of the Act of 1950. 4.31. We have perused the pleading. The plaintiff in quite unambiguous terms stated in para 5 of the plaint that the defendants paid rent of the premises uptil 31.08.1995 and thereafter they stopped the payment of rent and the same was not paid so far. The averment to the effect that payment of rent has been stopped clearly shows that the tenant neither paid nor tendered rent to the landlord. In view of it proceedings in plaint are competent enough to satisfy requirements of Section 13(i)(a) of the Act of 1950. 5.32. The finding of the learned Single Judge to the effect that the rent was paid to Shri Ram Das Modani is of no consequence as we have already held that neither Seeta Ram Bhandar can be treated as landlord in present controversy nor Shri Ram Das Modani was ever authorised or declared entitled to receive rent from the landlord or even by Seeta Ram Bhandar. In view of it we are in agreement with the finding given by the learned trial Court with regard to issue No. 3. In view of it we are in agreement with the finding given by the learned trial Court with regard to issue No. 3. Learned Single Judge wrongly held that there was no default in payment of rent by the defendants. 6.33. Learned Single Judge held that the material alteration in the suit premises was made on basis of the permission given by Shri Ram Das Modani in capacity of authorised representative of Seeta Ram Bhandar Trust and, therefore, the ground for eviction on basis of material alteration was not available to the plaintiff appellant. In our considered opinion, as we have already held that the sole landlord of the suit premises is the plaintiff appellant and, therefore, any permission given by Shri Ram Das Modani is of no consequence. It is admitted position that the material alteration in the suit premises was made by the defendant Rishab Chand Bhandari without any permission or sanction by the plaintiff who is the landlord of the suit premises. 34. In view of it, the trial Court was right in issuing a decree for eviction in favour of the plaintiff appellant on the ground that the tenant has made a material alteration in the suit premises. 35. There is no dispute that the property in question was let out