ORDER 1. By way of the present writ petition, petitioners have challenged the order dated 25.01.2022, vide which an application dated 21.01.2022, filed by the petitioners under Section 21 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as the ’Act of 2001’), has been rejected. 2. The facts appertain for the present purposes are that the respondent had filed an original petition under Section 9 (a) of the Act of 2001, seeking eviction of present petitioners on the grounds raised therein. 3. Indisputably, the respondent No.1 had showed himself to be landlord in relation to the demised premises while filing original petition, that was filed in the year 2016. 4. When the petition in question reached at the stage of final arguments, an application dated 21.01.2022 came to be moved by the present petitioners/tenants, inter alia, asserting that the original petitioner- Narpat Singh is not landlord, inasmuch as, he had gifted the property in question to one Manju Choudhary vide registered gift deed dated 28.09.2012. 5. The trial Court rejected petitioners’ aforesaid application with a cost of Rs.2,000/-, inter alia, observing that same has been filed simply with a view to protract the proceedings. 6. Mr. Kotwani, learned counsel for the petitioners argued that learned Tribunal has erred in rejecting petitioners’ application. 7. While inviting Court’s attention towards the gift deed dated 28.09.2012, it was argued that since respondent- Narpat Singh had transferred the property to Manju Choudhary, by way of registered gift deed in the year 2012, he could not have filed a petition for eviction of the present petitioners/tenants, as he had transferred ownership or rights in the subject property. 8. Learned counsel invited Court’s attention towards the definition of landlord given in Clause (c) of Section 2 of the Act, 2001 and argued that the respondent cannot be treated to be a landlord. 9. Clause (c) of Section 2, reads thus: (c) "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 for any other person, or who would so receive or be entitled to receive the rent, if the premises were let to a tenant." 10. A simple look at the definition of expression ’landlord’ shows that any person, who is receiving or is entitled to receive rent of any premises is a landlord. 11. Indisputably, the petitioners(tenants) have been paying the rent to the respondent- Narpat Singh and, therefore, he is a landlord within a meaning of Clause (c) of Section 2 of the Act of 2001. 12. It is settled position of law that while deciding a petition under Section 9 of the Act of 2001, the Tribunal is not required to examine and determine the issue of ownership of the property. 13. By paying the rent to the respondent, the petitioners have accepted the factum of the respondent being landlord. 14. That apart, the objection in relation to respondent’s entitlement, has been raised at the fag end. No such objection has ever been raised. 15. This Court does not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order dated 25.01.2022. 16. The writ petition, therefore, fails. 17. Stay application also stands disposed of accordingly.