JUDGMENT Hon’ble Rakesh Tiwari, J.—I have heard Counsel for the parties. 2. This petition has been filed challenging the validity and correctness of order dated 30.11.2006 passed by the Prescribed Authority/J.S.C.C., Allahabad in P.A. Case No. 23 of 2005 (Smt. Savitri Devi v. Dileep Kumar Chaudhary) and further a writ, order or direction of suitable nature has been prayed, directing the Court below to allow the amendment application of the petitioner/O.P. 35A dated 30.10.2006 for seeking amendment in the written statement in P.A. Case No. 23 of 2005. 3. The facts carved out of the record are that the petitioner is the tenant of a shop and go-down on regular monthly payment of rent which was earlier paid to Sri Rajaram and thereafter to Smt. Savitri Devi-respondent No. 2 at the rate of Rs. 1000/- each per month with the consent and as per instruction of the owner and landlord of the premises without any default. 4. It is submitted by Counsel for the petitioner that Sri Rajaram Gupta informed and directed him by notice to make payment of regular monthly rent of the shop and the go-down w.e.f. 6.9.1999 to Smt. Savitri Devi who is now the owner and landlady. The petitioner thereafter started making regular monthly payment of rent of the premises under his tenancy to Smt. Savitri Devi as instructed. A registered notice was issued to the petitioner by respondent No. 2 Smt. Savitri Devi in reference to notice dated 24.2.2000 directing him to vacate the premises in question under the tenancy in his occupation. The petitioner/tenant sent his reply to the notice dated 30.3.2005 denying the allegations made therein. It appears that thereafter the applicant/opposite party No. 2 filed a release application under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 in P.S. Case No. 23 of 2005 for release of the premises in question in her favour as the owner and landlady of the same. It appears that thereafter the applicant/opposite party No. 2 filed a release application under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 in P.S. Case No. 23 of 2005 for release of the premises in question in her favour as the owner and landlady of the same. In the written statement in P.A. Case No. 23 of 2005 the allegation and the claim of Smt. Savitri Devi-respondent No. 2 landlady as set forth in the release application was denied inter-alia that from very beginning she claimed ownership over the premises in question on the basis of a gift of the whole premises said to have been made to her by her father Rajaram including the portion under the tenancy of the petitioner; that relying upon her claim, the petitioner/tenant had been making regular monthly payment of rent to her but at no point of time gift deed or any such document of transfer of title/ownership was ever produced on record by the applicant in the release application in support of her claim as landlady. 5. The Counsel for the petitioner urged that the petitioner/tenant obtained certain relevant and material documents from the District Court in reference to Original Suit No. 313 of 1996 (Smt. Savitri Devi v. Rajaram Gupta) filed by Smt. Savitri Devi against her father for a decree of declaration on the basis of a will deed dated 28.6.1986 said to have been executed by Rajaram in her favour in respect of the premises in question namely the ex parte decree dated 7.5.1997 and the memo of Civil Appeal No. 78 of 1997 filed by Rajaram against her daughter in respect of the house in question as well as the order dated 10.12.1997 in the said appeal which were sought to be brought on record by him; that the very perusal of the aforesaid documents specifically demonstrate the admitted facts that the ownership rights over the premises in question has been claimed by Smt. Savitri Devi in the release application on the basis of the will deed. It is urged that a will deed will operate only after the death of the person who has executed it, i.e. in the instant case Smt. Savitri Devi can claim the rent of the premises only after the death of Sri Rajaram Gupta her father, but she has been realizing the rent by misrepresentation that she is landlady on the basis of same gift deed as fraudulently. It is submitted that since Rajaram, the testator of the will deed is alive, respondent No. 2/applicant in the release application has no right, title, interest to claim ownership over the premises in question or to maintain the release application under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act merely on the basis of the said deed for realizing rent which is based on fraud and misrepresentation. It is stated that the release application has been filed immediately on getting the evidence of the said glaring facts, the petitioner/Smt. Savitri Devi in collusion with her father and filed application for amendment in the written statement to bring the aforesaid relevant facts and documents on record. 6. It is further stated that from the perusal of the plaint in Original Suit No. 313 of 1996 (Savitri Devi v. Rajaram Gupta), the judgment and decree dated 7.5.1997 passed in the said suit and the subsequent civil Appeal No. 78 of 1997 challenging the judgment and decree dated 7.5.1997 and its order of dismissal, it is clear that the entire claim for release as set up by the applicant Smt. Savitri Devi, in the release application for the release of the premises on ownership rights over the premises House No. 28, Hewette Road, Allahabad by Smt. Savitri Devi under tenancy of the petitioner which is absolutely false being based on forged and fabricated documents. It is submitted that in fact there has been no gift deed executed at all in favour of Smt. Savitri Devi by Rajaram Gupta, her father which the petitioner has been actually made to believe on misrepresentation by Smt. Savitri Devi. It is submitted that in fact there has been no gift deed executed at all in favour of Smt. Savitri Devi by Rajaram Gupta, her father which the petitioner has been actually made to believe on misrepresentation by Smt. Savitri Devi. According to the petitioner, the glaring fact which transpires from the perusal of the documents on record are as follows : (i) The O.S. No.313 of 1996 (Savitri Devi v. Rajaram Gupta) has been filed by the applicant/plaintiff to the effect that the defendant her father has executed a registered will deed in her favour on 28.6.1986 in respect of the house in question on the ground that he has taken ‘Sanyas’. A relief for a decree of declaration was sought to declare the plaintiff/respondent No. 2 as the owner in occupation of the house in question, being 28, Hewette Road, Allahabad. The defendant, Rajaram Gupta (father of the plaintiff) contested the suit inter alia that as a result the plaintiff has not been the owner of the premises in question as he has taken Sanyas. (ii) The said suit being O.S. No. 313 of 1996 was decreed ex parte in favour of the plaintiff/respondent No. 2 vide judgment and order 7.5.1997 passed by the Civil Judge (SD), Allahabad. (iii) Sri Rajaram filed a Civil Appeal No. 78 of 1987 (Rajaram v. Smt Savitri Devi) on 24.7.1997 challenging the ex parte judgment and decree dated 7.5.1997 passed in Original Suit No. 313 of 1996 with the allegation that the registered will executed by him in favour of Smt. Savitri Devi may not be enforced till his lifetime who shall become owner of the premises only after his death. iv. The Civil Appeal No. 78 of 1997 filed by Rajaram was dismissed on 10.12.1997 for non-prosecution; that certified copy of the order sheet reveals that after filing of the said civil appeal and steps had deliberately not been taken by the appellant Rajaram for service on the respondent Smt. Savitri Devi despite order of the Court for obtaining collusive decree dated 7.5.1997 by the respondent. 7. The Counsel for the petitioner has then urged that the order has been passed by Prescribed Authority in P.A. Case No. 23 of 2005 in a cursory manner on erroneous consideration of facts and law whereby the amendment application of the petitioner/opposite party was rejected. 7. The Counsel for the petitioner has then urged that the order has been passed by Prescribed Authority in P.A. Case No. 23 of 2005 in a cursory manner on erroneous consideration of facts and law whereby the amendment application of the petitioner/opposite party was rejected. It is further urged that the impugned order passed by the Court below rejecting the amendment application is absolutely perverse, illegal and is not sustainable in law and suffers from serious material irregularity and non-application of mind. It is submitted by the Counsel for the petitioner that the amendment as sought by the petitioner/opposite party in the written statement goes to the very root of the cause and has direct material bearing on the issue involved in the case for facilitating the cause of justice between the parties. It is stated that the amendment is sought neither to cause delay or to complicate the proceedings as such the observations of the Court below in this regard suffers from a serious error of law apparent on the face of record and are against the settled law which have prejudiced the case of the petitioner. In this regard the Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon the following judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. (1) Panchdeo Narain Srivastava v. Km. Jyoti Sahay and another, AIR 1983 SC 462 . (2) Estralla Rubber v. Dass Estate (P) Ltd., (2001) 8 SCC 97 . (3) Baldev Singh and others etc. v. Manohar Singh and another etc., 2006 AIR SCW 3956. (4) Anjum Kausar Khan v. Rashidan, 2006(6) ALJ 202. (5) Indian Bank v. M/s Satyam Fibres (India) Pvt. Ltd., JT 1996(7) SC 135. 8. (2) Estralla Rubber v. Dass Estate (P) Ltd., (2001) 8 SCC 97 . (3) Baldev Singh and others etc. v. Manohar Singh and another etc., 2006 AIR SCW 3956. (4) Anjum Kausar Khan v. Rashidan, 2006(6) ALJ 202. (5) Indian Bank v. M/s Satyam Fibres (India) Pvt. Ltd., JT 1996(7) SC 135. 8. Counsel for the respondents has drawn the attention of the Court for ready reference of the notice is quoted hereunder a notice given by the father of Smt. Savitri Devi landlord to the petitioner : *gLo fgnk;r vius mijksDr eqofDdy dks vkidks fuEufyf[kr lwpuk nh tkrh gS % 1& ;g fd edku ua0 28@32 ghosV jksM kgj] bykgkckn dk ekfyd esjk eqofDdy FkkA 2& ;g fd esjs eqofDdy dk vki ,d nj nqdku o ,d xksnke fdjk;s ij fy;k Fkk] mldk fdjk;k vki geskk vnk djrs FksA 3& ;g fd vc fnukad 6-9-1999 ls edku ua0 28@32 ghosV jksM] dk ekfyd yS.M ykM esjk eqofDdy ugha jg x;k gSA 4& ;g fd vc fnukad 6-9-1999 ls edku ua0 28@32 ghosV jksM ftlesa vki fdjk;snkj gS] dh ekfyd yS.M ykM lkfo=h nsoh iRuh jktsUæ izlkn gSA vr% bl uksfVl ds }kjk vkidks lwfpr fd;k tkrk gS fd edku ua0 28@32 ghosV jksM ds cdk;k fdjk;k o Hkfo"; ds fdjk;s ds lEca/k esa mijksDr lkfo=h nsoh ls lEidZ djds cdk;k fdjk;k fnukad 6-9-1999 ls vc rd vnk dj nsa vkSj Hkfo"; ds fdjk;s ds lEcU/k esa lkfo=h nsoh ls lEidZ djds ckr dj ysaA fnukad 24-4-2002 Hkonh; ¼jesk pUæ mik/;k;½ ,MoksdsV] dejk uEcj 4 nhokuh dpsgjh bykgkcknA^ 9. By the aforesaid notice, the petitioner has been informed by Sri Raja Ram (erstwhile landlord) father of Smt. Savitri Devi-respondent No. 2 (the present landlord) through his Counsel that he was the landlord of House No. 28/32, Hewette Road (Vivekanand Marg), Allahabad in which the petitioner was a tenant of a shop and a godown. And that if the said tenanted premises which was earlier being paid to him by the petitioner may now henceforth w.e.f. 6.9.1999 be paid to his daughter Smt. Savitri Devi wife of Rajendra Prasad-respondent No. 2 she is the landlady. 10. And that if the said tenanted premises which was earlier being paid to him by the petitioner may now henceforth w.e.f. 6.9.1999 be paid to his daughter Smt. Savitri Devi wife of Rajendra Prasad-respondent No. 2 she is the landlady. 10. It appears that a notice dated 30.3.2005 has also been given by Smt. Savitri Devi—respondent No. 2 which is appended as Annexure-2 to the writ petition wherein she has claimed that she required the aforesaid accommodation under the tenancy of petitioner for establishing her son who is already married. It is also alleged in the notice that the petitioner has made material alteration and damaged building, hence the tenancy of the petitioner is terminated. It was requested that to the petitioner tenant be directed to hand over the vacant and peaceful possession of the accommodation in question to her within 30 days of the receipt of notice. 11. In para 1 of the reply sent by the tenant to the notice sent by Smt. Savitri Devi, the petitioner-tenant has categorically admitted Smt. Savitri Devi to be his landlady of the aforesaid tenanted portion of House No. 28/32, Hewette Road (Vivekanand Marg), Allahabad on rent of Rs. 1000/- per month. However, it was denied in the reply by him that the need of the tenanted portion for her son was bona fide. 12. It appears from the record that the release application was filed in the month of May 2005 by respondent No. 2 which was registered as P.A. Case No. 23 of 2005 (Smt. Savitri Devi v. Dileep Kumar Chaudhary) against the petitioner-tenant before the Court of Prescribed Authority, Allahabad under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Urban Building (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972) for release of the shop on the following grounds : (i) The applicant (Savitri Devi) is the owner and landlady of the premises in question and she requires the portion under tenancy for business by her own. Sri Rajendra Prasad runs his business of Audio Cassette at 306, Shahganj, Allahabad and the elder son Ram Krishan runs his business of repairing of electric appliances at 98/88, Johnstonganj, Allahabad which is the ancestral property of the husband of the applicant. (ii) Their 2nd son Sri Raj Krishan is unemployed. 13. Sri Rajendra Prasad runs his business of Audio Cassette at 306, Shahganj, Allahabad and the elder son Ram Krishan runs his business of repairing of electric appliances at 98/88, Johnstonganj, Allahabad which is the ancestral property of the husband of the applicant. (ii) Their 2nd son Sri Raj Krishan is unemployed. 13. It further appears that the allegations made in the release application were denied by the petitioner and the case set forth by him in the release application was with the following assertions : (i) The applicant is the sole daughter of Sri Rajaram the erstwhile owner and landlord of the building in question who has gifted the house in question to the applicant and stays with the family of the daughter and is doing business alongwith the family; (ii) The son of the applicant, namely, Sri Raj Krishan for whom the need for the shop has been set up looks after the business of Audio Cassette alongwith his father Sri Rajaram Gupta who is aged about 92 years and is unable to do business and in fact the business of Audio Cassette at Shahganj, Allahabad is owned by Sri Raj Krishan alongwith the business in the shop run by his grandfather Sri Rajaram Gupta (Nana); (iii) The applicant somehow wants the eviction of the tenant/opposite party and has filed the present release application on false, frivolous and flimsy grounds; (iv) The premises in question under the tenancy of the opposite party is not at all required to the applicant as alleged. Neither there is any hardship nor there is any requirement. The release application is not bona fide. The shop in question under the tenancy of the opposite party is the sole source of his livelihood and in case of release, the tenant-opposite party would be ruined and would be rendered without any source of livelihood. 14. The attention of the Court has also been drawn by the Counsel for the landlord to para 1 of the plaint filed in P.A. Case No. 23 of 2005 wherein it has been stated that respondent No. 2 Smt. Savitri Devi the applicant in the aforesaid release application wherein she claimed herself to be the landlady of the accommodation in dispute. The said paragraph has been replied by the petitioner-tenant vide his written statement dated 5.9.2005 admitting the factum that he was a tenant of landlady Smt. Savitri Devi. 15. The said paragraph has been replied by the petitioner-tenant vide his written statement dated 5.9.2005 admitting the factum that he was a tenant of landlady Smt. Savitri Devi. 15. Counsel for the respondent has placed reliance upon Para 11 of AIR 1960 SC 100 and AIR 1983 SC 462 , Panchdeo Narain Srivastava v. Km. Jyoti Sahay and another (upon which reliance was also placed by the petitioner’s Counsel) and has urged that in view of the admitted fact by the petitioner that he is the tenant of respondent No. 2, he cannot now retreat from it. It is further submitted that several dates for arguments had been fixed in the matter and the petitioner cannot be permitted to amend his written statement at the stage of final arguments. 16. It also appears from the record that the premises in question earlier belonged to Rajaram Gupta, who was owner and landlord and Smt. Savitri Devi-respondent No. 2, the applicant in the release application claimed ownership rights over the premises in question on the basis of the transfer of title/ownership by virtue of gift made in her favour by her father Rajaram Gupta. The petitioner after information in this regard by Rajaram Gupta and Smt. Savitri Devi his daughter started paying rent to respondent No. 2. There was no objection made by Rajaram in respect of payment of rent by the petitioner to Smt. Savitri Devi as it was paid to her by the tenant on the instructions of the erstwhile landlord Rajaram her father; that petitioner-tenant continued to make regular monthly payment of rent to her recognizing her rights as landlord and owner for remaining the rent of the premises in question. 17. The contention of the Counsel for the petitioner that at no point of time any such gift deed as alleged or any document of transfer of title/ownership claimed by the applicant-respondent No. 2 for claiming right of ownership over the premises in question was ever filed on record as such she cannot claim herself to be the owner and her claim is irrelevant. In the facts and circumstances of the case stated above, neither the earlier landlord father of respondent No. 2-Smt. Savitri Devi nor the petitioner raised any objection to the rent being paid to her rather it was on the instructions of the landlord Rajaram that the petitioner started paying rent to Smt. Savitri Devi-respondent No. 2. 18. It is admitted fact that the petitioner claims that during preparation of argument in the case it transpired to him that the gift deed by virtue of which the applicant respondent No. 2 has been claiming ownership right/title over the premises in question and has set up the need as its owner does not at all exist. Further according to him, there has been a total collusion of the applicant with Rajaram Gupta in the transfer of title in an unauthorized and illegal manner and the personal need has been set up for the release of the premises in question under Section 21 (1)(a) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 by fraud and misrepresentation hence the release application is not maintainable at her instance and is devoid of merits. 19. It is evident from paragraph 12 of the writ petition that the petitioner has also admitted the fact that he had obtained certified copy of the plaint in Original Suit No. 313 of 1996 (Savitri Devi v. Rajaram Gupta) filed by Smt. Savitri Devi applicant in the release application against her father in respect of the building in question, the ex parte judgment and decree dated 7.5.1997 passed by the Civil Judge (SD), Allahabad in the suit and the memo of appeal in Civil Appeal No. 78 of 1997 (Rajaram v. Savitri Devi) filed by Rajaram against her daughter Smt. Savitri Devi challenging the judgment and decree dated 7.5.1997 passed in Original Suit No. 313 of 1996 and the order dated 10.12.1997 for dismissing the said appeal in non-prosecution. 20. 20. The amendment application 35A in P.A. Case No. 23 of 2005 (Smt. Savitri Devi v. Dileep Kumar Chaudhary) appended as Annexure-10 in the amendment application, the following amendment was prayed is as under : **6 v& ;g fd Jh jktkjke xqIrk tks lnSo ls ,d lkalkfjd O;fDr jgs ,oa x`gLFk thou O;rhr djrs jgs rFkk vkt Hkh dj jgsa gSa us foi{kh dks izuxr nqdku ,oa xksnke esa csn[ky djus gsrq Jherh lkfo=h nsoh ls lkaB xkaB dj diViwoZd ,oa xSj dkuwuh 6 c& ;g fd fMxzh u dsoy kwU; gS cfYd feyhHkxr dqfVyrkiw.kZ ,oa lkaB xkaB dk ifj.kke gS rFkk ftlls Jherh lkfo=h nsoh dks fdlh fdLe dk dksbZ vf/kdkj izkIr ugha gksrk vkSj og Lokeh o edkunkj Hkh ugha gq;h mUgsa izLrqr okn okLrs foekspu iz"uxr nqdku ,oa xksnke dks fjDr djkus dk dksbZ vf/kdkj izkIr ugha gSA 6 l& ;g fd izLrqr okn u dsoy tky] Qjsc /kks[kk/kM+h ,oa dqÑR;ksa ls ijhiw.kZ gS cfYd fdlh fLFkfr esa iks"k.kh; ugha gSA 21. The Court has dealt with the amendment application and has given a finding holding that from the record it is apparent that the tenant has admitted Smt. Savitri Devi applicant as her landlady and now he wanted to retreat from this admission. The Court observed that now at the stage of hearing the tenant wants to bring out a new case disputing the relationship between tenant-landlord Smt. Savitri Devi for ulterior purposes dealing just in the matter and the order in the release application. The Court further observed that in case, there is any Farzi decree obtained by Smt. Savitri Devi in collusion with Rajaram Gupta would be between them and the tenant has no right to file decree obtained from the Court of law by the daughter against the father. The finding of fact by the Court that the release application is neither required for clarifying the fact in the release application nor essential for its disposal does not in the facts and circumstances require any interference. 22. The amendments required are governed by the rules framed under Act No. 13 of 1972 which was subject to the provisions of C.P.C. as such any amendment required is liable to be filed within reasonable time as provides under statutes starting time limit under the Act for deciding the release application has been given and the Courts are required to observe this statutory limitation. 23. 23. The Court has categorically held that the amendment sought by the petitioner is mala fide and for creating hurdles rather than for clarifying or disposal of the release application which cannot be permitted as tenant wants attention of the Court diverted from the main dispute by filing amendment application at the time of final hearing and as such it would not be proper for dispensation or essential in the interest of justice to allow the application of petitioner. The relevant extract of the order of this Court is as under : **i=koyh esa izfroknh ds izfrokn i=ksa ds voyksdu ls tkfgj gS fd mlus ;kph dks Hkou Lokeh ekuk gS vkSj vius dks fdjk;snkj ekuk gSA vc og mDr rF; ls eqdjuk pkgrk gS rFkk LokfeRo dk fookn iSnk djds vuko;d :i ls fjyht izkFkZuki= dk fuLrkj.k yVdkuk pkgrk gS ;kph Hkou Lokeh ds i{k esa dksbZ fMØh QthZ feyh gS ;k lgh feyh gS mls pqukSrh nsus dk dksbZ vf/kdkj fdjk;snkj dks ugha gSA izLrkfor lakks/ku u rks fjyht izkFkZuki= ds rF;ksa dks Li"V djus ds fy, vko;d gS u gh fjyht izkFkZuk i= ds izHkkoh fuLrkj.k ds fy, vko;d gSA ,DV uEcj 13 lu~ 1972 ds fu;ekoyh esa tks Hkh lakks/ku dk izko/kku gS og tk0 nh0 ds izko/kkuksa ds v/khu gSA fjyht izkFkZuk i= ds fuLrkj.k gsrq fu/kkZj.k le; lhek nks eghus dh vof/k dks ns[krs gq, lakks/ku dh laHkkouk cgqr gh lhfer gSA bldk bLrseky fjyht izkFkZuki= dk fuLrkj.k yVdkus ds fy, dnkfi ugha fd;k tk ldrkA izLrkfor lakks/ku cnfu;rh ls flQZ fjyht izkFkZuki= dk fuLrkj.k Vkyus ds fy, rFkk vuko;d :i ls isatnxh iSnk djus ds fy, fn;k x;k gS rkfd ewy fookn ls U;k;ky; dk /;ku cVk;k tk;A ,sls lakks/ku dh vuqefr nsuk fdlh Hkh nkk esa U;k; laxr ugha gksxkA lakks/ku izkFkZuk i= fujLr gksus ;ksX; gSA vknsk lakks/ku izkFkZuki= dkxt la[;k 35&, mijksDrkuqlkj fujLr fd;k tkrk gSA okLrs cgl i=koyh fnukad 11-12-2006 dks isk gksA g0 vLi"V fu;r izkf/kdkjh@tt [kQhQk bykgkcknA^^ 24. On enquiry made by this Court, the Counsel for the parties admitted the fact that neither Rajaram Gupta father of respondent No. 2 nor the tenant ever objected to pay part of rent to Smt. Savitri Devi, the daughter of the landlord; It may be that a will might have been executed by the father earlier which might have been cause of dispute was between the father and daughter regarding receiving rent later on the father instructed the tenant to pay the rent to the daughter who had the right to receive the rent. Hence the contention of Counsel for the petitioner that the will would have become executable on the death of Rajaram who is still alive has no force as Rajaram is not objecting to the rent being received by his daughter respondent No. 2. In the circumstances, the petitioner cannot raise any objection or defeat the claim as respondent No. 2 as landlady to receive rent as a matter of right which even according to the petitioner, is not being controverted or challenged by her father who is said to be the original landlord and had issued instructions to him in this regard. In the circumstances the question of payment of rent to the daughter on basis of the said will is coldly irrelevant. 25. The word ‘tenant’ has been defined in Section 3(a) of Act No. 13 of 1972 as under : (a) ‘tenant’, in relation to a building, means a person by whom its rent is payable, and on the tenant’s death— [(1) in the case of a residential building, such only of his heirs as normally resided with him in the building at the time of his death; (2) in the case of a non-residential building, his heirs."] 26. Similarly landlord has been defined in Section 2(g) as a person in relation to a building to whom its rent is payable if the building is let out and includes except in clause (g), the agent or attorney of such person. It is apparent from the definition that landlord is a person to whom the rent is payable by the tenant. 27. In the facts and circumstances particularly in view of the rent being paid by the petitioner to respondent No. 2 on the instructions of her father she is the landlady entitled to receive the rent. It is apparent from the definition that landlord is a person to whom the rent is payable by the tenant. 27. In the facts and circumstances particularly in view of the rent being paid by the petitioner to respondent No. 2 on the instructions of her father she is the landlady entitled to receive the rent. The release application filed by respondent No. 2 under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act as landlord for eviction of the tenant is, therefore, maintainable on both the Courts as being landlord of the tenanted premises and also as owner of the house. 28. For the reasons stated above, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. ———