JUDGMENT Dr. Bharat Bhushan Parsoon, J.:- Dismissal of application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the petition for eviction of the petitioners-tenants is under challenge in this revision petition. Petitioners do not deny their tenancy under Jagat Ram vide a rent note executed by them in his favour. He died on 14.02.2011. His son, Santosh Kumar Sharma in his individual capacity and as sole Proprietor of firm M/s Sharma Cycle Store has filed a petition for eviction of the tenants, petitioners herein, under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban [Control of Rent & Eviction] Act, 1973. 2. Merely because Santosh Kumar Sharma son of Jagat Ram is not the sole owner of the premises under tenancy of the petitioners- tenants, cannot be made basis for dismissal of the eviction petition against the petitioners-tenants on the ground of maintainability as was sought by them in their application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. A proposition that a co-owner can file a petition for eviction of a tenant, is not in dispute. In this regard, reference may be made to Ram Piari Vs. Dr. Kesho Ram 1980(2) RCR (Rent) 137 and Mathra Dass Vs. Ram Piari AIR 1982 Punjab 286. Even Hon’ble Apex Court in Sri Ram Pasricha Versus Jagannath AIR 1976 SC 2335 has accepted this proposition. Para 29 of the said judgment for ready reference is reproduced as below: “29. Jurisprudentially it is not correct to say that a co-owner of a property is not its owner. He owns every part of the composite property alongwith others and it cannot be said that he is only a part-owner or a fractional owner of the property. The position will change only when partition takes place. It is, therefore, not possible to accept the submission that the plaintiff who is admittedly the landlord and co-owner of the premises is not the owner of the premises within the meaning of Section 13(1)(f). It is not necessary to establish that the plaintiff is the only owner of the property for the purpose of Section 13(1)(f) as long as he is a co-owner of the property being at the same time the acknowledged landlord of the defendants.” 3. It is not necessary to establish that the plaintiff is the only owner of the property for the purpose of Section 13(1)(f) as long as he is a co-owner of the property being at the same time the acknowledged landlord of the defendants.” 3. Question of ownership even otherwise loses significance once the petitioners/tenants have not denied that after the death of Jagat Ram on 14.2.2011, Santosh Kumar Sharma, who has filed the petition for eviction, is his son. The application of the tenants was, therefore, rightly rejected by the Court below. 4. Finding no merit in the revision petition, the same is dismissed in limine. ---------0.B.S.0------------ ----------------