Rajan Gupta, J. 1. Dispute pertains to a shop situated in Tehsil Khanna District Ludhiana. Respondent No. 1-landlord filed an eviction petition before the Rent Controller at Khanna seeking eviction of petitioner-tenant on the ground that he needed the premises for personal necessity. He pleaded that tenant took the shop on rent from the father of the petitioner in the year 1964 at monthly rent of ` 35/-. After he purchased the property, petitioner became his tenant in the demised premises. Landlord took the plea that he had two sons. He wanted to settle one son in shop 'X' and other in shop 'Y'. On notice being issued original tenant-Surinder Nath and his two sons filed a joint reply. They pleaded that litigation regarding title of the property was pending amongst co-owners along with respondent No. 1. However, they admitted landlord-tenant relationship subject to decision of litigation between co-owners. They also took the stand that petitioner had sufficient accommodation which can be converted into commercial complex. To prove his case, petitioner Kuldip Singh stepped into the witness box. He produced the site plan of the demised premises Ex. A1 and also copies of receipt regarding payment of rent bearing signatures of petitioner-tenant. Another witness i.e. official of a company Godrej Agrovet Ltd. appeared in his support. He produced appointment letter dated 31.03.2006 pertaining to his son to show that his employment was temporary in nature. His son Mandeep Singh appeared as AW 3 and claimed that his father required the premises for his occupation and business. He produced certain certificates to show his educational qualification and his appointment as clerk with Godrej Agrovet Ltd. The tenant deposed before the court that landlord only wanted increase in rent. On refusal to do so, he filed ejectment petition. He reiterated that landlord had sufficient accommodation which could be converted into commercial complex, thus, his need was not bona fide. Another witness Amarjit Singh from the Local Income Tax office appeared and brought on record income tax return of the tenant. Another witness deposed regarding salary of Mandeep Singh son of landlord. Certain other witnesses deposed regarding employment of Mandeep Singh. After appreciating the evidence, the Rent Controller came to the conclusion that landlord required the premises for his bona fide use and, thus, allowed the ejectment petition. Petitioner was directed to vacate the premises within three months. Another witness deposed regarding salary of Mandeep Singh son of landlord. Certain other witnesses deposed regarding employment of Mandeep Singh. After appreciating the evidence, the Rent Controller came to the conclusion that landlord required the premises for his bona fide use and, thus, allowed the ejectment petition. Petitioner was directed to vacate the premises within three months. Findings of Rent Controller were unsuccessfully challenged by the tenant before the appellate authority. Aggrieved, he has preferred the present revision petition before this court. Mr. Sarin, learned senior counsel mainly argued that respondent No. 1 could not claim to be landlord as his title was disputed by other brothers/sisters. According to him, Kuldip Singh claimed to be owner of the property by virtue of sale-deed executed in his favour by his father Wazir Singh. This sale-deed was challenged by co-owners and has been set-aside. Regular second appeal regarding same is pending before this court. Even sister of Kuldip Singh had moved an application for impleadment but same was rejected, According to him, there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between respondent No. 1 and the petitioner. This apart, dispute regarding title of respondent-landlord is pending in second appeal. During its pendency tenant is not liable to be ejected. Lower appellate court did not independently appreciate the evidence and material on record. Thus, said judgment is unsustainable. He has relied upon judgment reported as Khiali Ram v. Santosh Singh, : 1999 (2) RCR 667 to contend that when dispute regarding partition of property is pending, co-owners cannot seek eviction of the tenant. He has also relied upon judgment reported as Mohinder Prasad Jain v. Manohar Lal Jain 2006 (1) RCR 250 (SC) : 2006 (1) RCR 250 to contend that if one of the co-owners objects to the eviction petition it is a relevant fact to be taken into consideration. He has also relied upon judgment Balwant Singh v. Harbhajan Singh, : 1985 (1) RCR 613 to contend that Rent Controller has no jurisdiction to decide title of the premises. In case title is disputed, tenant cannot seek ejectment. 2. Learned counsel for the respondent vehemently opposed the plea. He submitted that petitioner tenant had himself admitted the relation ship of landlord and tenant and had been paying rent as would be clear from the receipts. In case title is disputed, tenant cannot seek ejectment. 2. Learned counsel for the respondent vehemently opposed the plea. He submitted that petitioner tenant had himself admitted the relation ship of landlord and tenant and had been paying rent as would be clear from the receipts. According to him, the application moved by Gurcharan Kaur under Order 1 Rule10 for impleadment was rejected by the court below. The said order attained finality as petitioner never challenged the same. According to him, pendency of any dispute regarding title between the co-owners cannot be a bar for the landlord to seek eviction of the tenant. Tenant cannot be overly concerned with the litigation, if any, pending between co-owners regarding title. He has relied upon judgment reported as M/s. Kharaiti Ram Bansi Lal v. Smt. Radha Rani & anr., : V ILR Punjab & Haryana (1969) 2, 374. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully considered their respective submission. 4. In Khiali Ram's case (supra) rent petition was filed by landlord seeking ejectment from a shop. However, tenant-Khiali Ram took the plea that certain co-owners had executed sale-deed in his favour, thus, Rent Controller could not order his eviction. Courts below, however, ordered ejectment of petitioner. On a revision petition being preferred before this court, order was set aside. This court observed as follows:- 12. Therefore, unless the partition takes place, it is not possible to hold that the respondent has right to evict the petitioner under the provisions of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (Rent Act). The co-ownership of the vendors is not in dispute and, therefore, the petitioner can be said to have acquired any right of co-ownership and, therefore, taking recourse to the civil court for deciding the ownership does not arise. In view of the above reasons, I find that the judgments of the Courts below are not in accordance with law. 5. It is evident that aforesaid judgment is not applicable to facts of the present case as tenant does not have a sale-deed in his favour from any of the co-owners of respondent-landlord. On the other hand, he admits the tenant and landlord relationship and has been depositing rent with the court. Judgment in Mohinder Prasad Jain's case (supra) on which reliance has been placed by Mr. Sarin, is also not helpful to case of the petitioner. On the other hand, he admits the tenant and landlord relationship and has been depositing rent with the court. Judgment in Mohinder Prasad Jain's case (supra) on which reliance has been placed by Mr. Sarin, is also not helpful to case of the petitioner. In the said judgment, it has been held by the apex court that one of the co-owners can file an ejectment petition. It is not necessary for him to take consent of other co-owners before preferring the petition. The court, however, observed that if one of the co-owners objects to the eviction petition initiated by landlord that may be relevant factor to be taken into consideration. In the instant case, landlord claims to be sole owner of the shop in view of sale-deed executed in his favour by his father Wazir Singh. Though litigation regarding same is still pending yet his status as co-owner is undisputed. Admittedly, application filed by co-owner Gurcharan Kaur for impleadment was rejected by the Rent Controller but petitioner never chose to challenge the order. Thus, this court cannot come to the conclusion that co-owners have objection to eviction of the petitioner from the demised premises. Similarly judgment rendered in Balwant Singh's case (supra) is also not applicable. In the said case, landlord failed to prove his ownership over the premises. Single Bench of this court, thus, held that Rent Controller was not competent to decide the issue of title. Having failed to establish the relationship of landlord-tenant, ejectment petition was dismissed. However, in the instant case there is no dispute regarding status of respondent at least as co-owner. This apart, landlord-tenant relationship has been admitted by the tenant subject to decision of title. It is noteworthy that tenant Surinder Nath stepped into the witness box. In his examination-in-chief, he did not deny the landlord-tenant relationship with the respondent. On the other hand, he admitted the receipts regarding payment of rent from 07.08.1995 to January, 2004. He deposed that the accepted the respondent as his landlord. Learned counsel for the respondent has relied upon judgment of this court in M/s. Kharaiti Ram Bansi Lal case (supra). In the said case, this court held as follows:- 20. On the other hand, he admitted the receipts regarding payment of rent from 07.08.1995 to January, 2004. He deposed that the accepted the respondent as his landlord. Learned counsel for the respondent has relied upon judgment of this court in M/s. Kharaiti Ram Bansi Lal case (supra). In the said case, this court held as follows:- 20. After giving the matter our careful consideration, we are of the view that the mere fact, that a tenant denies the relationship of landlord and tenant will not oust the jurisdiction of the Rent Controller to determine that question. If while determining that question, the Rent Controller comes to the conclusion that he cannot decide that question without determining the complicated question of title, he will, in that event, stay his hands. Bit if he can, without deciding the complicated question of title, determine the sole question, which falls within his jurisdiction, namely, whether there is the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, he will proceed to decide that question and would not be deterred by the fact that the tenants seek to raise the complicated question of title. This, in our view, is the correct approach to the problem; and the decided cases support this view. I am of the considered view that courts below have rightly proceeded to decide the question of landlord-tenant relationship. After coming to firm conclusion that relationship of landlord and tenant existed between landlord and tenant, they examined other questions with regard to bona fide necessity and ordered ejectment. Admittedly, petitioner has two sons. He rented out the premises way-back in the year 1964. His children having grown up, he filed instant petition for eviction of tenant to settle his two sons in the shop. In my considered view that courts below have rightly come to the conclusion that landlord had been successful in proving his bona fide necessity. As regards dispute of title between the co-owners, same is stated to be pending in second appeal before this court. However, dispute being between legal heirs of Wazir Singh, tenant cannot take benefit of the same. Pendency of such appeal would have no bearing on the eviction proceedings. The contention raised by Mr. Sarin that appellate authority has not independently appraised the matter is untenable. A perusal of the order passed by the appellate authority shows that all issues have been dealt therein. Pendency of such appeal would have no bearing on the eviction proceedings. The contention raised by Mr. Sarin that appellate authority has not independently appraised the matter is untenable. A perusal of the order passed by the appellate authority shows that all issues have been dealt therein. I am, thus, of the considered view that there is no merit in the revision petition. Dismissed.