JUDGEMENT A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. - 1. HEARD counsel for the parties. 2. ONLY two points have been urged before me. The first is in the context of issue No.6 and the second in the context of issue No.2, framed by the Rent Controller. Issue No.6 was whether the petitioner (respondent herein) is not the specified landlord? With regard to this issue, the case of the petitioner- tenant is that the respondent, at best, is one of the co-owner and not a person who would receive rent in his own account. On this basis, the finding and conclusion, reached by the Rent Controller, is sought to be assailed. Once it is conceded that the respondent is a co- owner and, therefore, landlord of the premises, it is not open to the petitioner-tenant to question the status or title of the respondent. The limited question is - whether the respondent can be considered as a specified landlord? It is not in dispute that the respondent has produced the certificate from the . Authority competent to issue such certificate that he has retired and also had relied on the affidavit filed by him that he or his spouse does not own and possess any other suitable accommodation in the local area in which he intends to reside of or to start his own business. The only argument of the petitioner is that it is admitted position that the rent was collected by the mother of the respondent and not by the petitioner at any point of time. That does not mean that the respondent would not fit into the definition of specified landlord entitled to apply for possession of the premises subject to fulfilling other requirements. 3. NO doubt, the rent was collected by the mother of the respondent, but not in her individual capacity as sole owner of the property or for that matter on behalf of some other family member. She was collecting that rent as one of the heir of the original landlord Bishamber Lal. It has come on record that the respondent was one of the heirs of Bishamber Lal and, therefore, had become co-owner of the property by succession. In that case, the exposition of the Single Judge of this Court in the case of Subhash Gupta versus N.K.Bansal1 would squarely apply to the fact situation of the present case. It has come on record that the respondent was one of the heirs of Bishamber Lal and, therefore, had become co-owner of the property by succession. In that case, the exposition of the Single Judge of this Court in the case of Subhash Gupta versus N.K.Bansal1 would squarely apply to the fact situation of the present case. Thus, understood, I find no substance in the challenge to the finding and the conclusion reached by the Rent Controller on the factum whether the . respondent is or is not a specified landlord. 4. THE next question, raised before me, is in the context of issue No.2. The argument is that since there was no material to indicate that the respondent had entered into any of agreement or licence in favour of the petitioner or for that matter, was collecting rent from the petitioner, there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioner and the respondent. To buttress this submission, reliance was placed on the decision of Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Mohinder Singh versus Ram Nath2. There is nothing to indicate in this decision that it was a case of eviction proceedings resorted to by the co-owner. The observations made in the said decision will be of no avail in the fact situation of the present case and in view of the indisputable position that the respondent is the co- owner of the suit property and, therefore, was co-landlord along with his mother. In the circumstances, this petition is devoid of merits. The same is dismissed, so also the pending application(s), if any.