JUDGMENT Manisha Batra, J. - The present revision petition has been filed by the revision petitioner Santa Singh (now dead and represented through legal representatives) challenging the order dated 23.09.2009 passed in Rent Appeal No.10 of 2008 titled as Santa Singh v Raj Mal whereby the learned Appellate Authority, Jalandhar while affirming the order dated 31.01.2008 passed by learned Rent Controller, Jalandhar, had allowed the petition filed by the landlord Raj Mal who too is now dead and represented by Legal representatives. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to hereinafter as per their original nomenclature before learned Rent Controller i.e. the revision-petitioner Santa Singh shall be referred to as respondent whereas the present respondents shall be referred to as legal representatives of petitioner Raj Mal. 3. The petitioner Raj Mal had filed petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act (for short 'the Act') seeking ejectment of respondent Santa Singh from the shop mentioned in detail in the head note of the petition (hereinafter to be mentioned as 'demised shop') on the ground that the respondent was in arrears of rent since 01.11.1992 till 16.07.1996 i.e. till the date of filing of the petition payable @Rs.800/- per month. The respondent-Santa Singh had appeared and filed written statement denying the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. It was alleged by him that infact it was one Raj Kumar son of Tek Chand resident of Jalandhar who was owner-cum-landlord of the demised shop. The demised shop had been constructed by the respondent at his own expenses. On being allured by the petitioner that the latter and respondent would be in a position to denounce the relationship of landlord and tenant between owner Raj Kumar and himself, if the respondent made an erroneous admission qua his being tenant of Raj Mal and not of Raj Kumar and on assurance that he would be benefitted appropriately, the respondent had filed a civil suit titled as Santa Singh vs. Raj Mal wherein he suffered admission of his being a tenant under the petitioner Raj Mal. Subsequently, Raj Mal turned dishonest and refused to extend any benefit to him and then the respondent had withdrawn his suit. It was denied that he was in arrears of rent of the demised shop. Subsequently, Raj Mal turned dishonest and refused to extend any benefit to him and then the respondent had withdrawn his suit. It was denied that he was in arrears of rent of the demised shop. It was asserted that the petitioner had no right to ask for payment of rent as he was neither owner nor landlord of the demised shop. Dismissal of the petition accordingly asked for. 4. The petitioner had filed replication controverting the pleas as taken in the written statement and re-asserting those of the petition. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned Rent Controller framed the following issues:- '1. Whether the relationship of landlord and tenant is existing between the parties? OPA 2. Whether the respondent is in arrears of rent w.e.f. 1.11.1992? OPP. 3. Relief." 5. The parties had adduced evidence in support of their respective assertions. The petitioner Raj Mal had examined himself as AW-1. In documentary evidence, he had tendered Mark A copy of a compromise shown to be effected between the respondent and himself on 02.11.1992 Ex.A2 to Ex.A-4 certified copies of plaint, written statement and replication respectively filed in Civil Suit No.107 of 1994 titled as Santa Singh v. Raj Mal, Ex.A-5 copy of application filed by the respondent for appointment of Local Commissioner, Mark B photocopy of report of Local Commissioner, Mark C photocopy of attendance sheet and Ex.A-6 and Ex.A-7 certified copy of judgment and decree sheet respectively passed in Civil Suit No.107 of 1994. On the other hand, the respondent-Santa Singh examined RW-2 Jaspal Singh, RW-3 Rajiv Kumar, RW-4 Manju Bala, Clerk, RW-5 Gopal Krishan, Patwari and RW-6 Satwinderjit Singh, Naib Tehsildar besides himself stepping into the witness box as RW-1. In documentary evidence, he produced Ex.R-2 certified copy of sale deed dated 03.10.2005 executed by power of attorney holder of Raj Kumar in favour of respondent on 03.10.2005, Ex.RW4/A certified copy of statement recorded by Raj Mal on 26.04.2005 Ex.RW4/B certified copy of his cross-examination dated 05.12.2005, RW4/C certified copy of report of Local Commissioner dated 29.08.2001, Ex.RW4/D application for appointment of Halqa Kanungo for conducting demarcation, Ex.RW4/E and Ex.RW4/F copies of notices. 6. 6. On perusal of evidence produced on record by both the parties and appreciating the contentions raised by their respective counsel, the learned Rent Controller vide order dated 31.01.2008, allowed the petition by holding that the respondent was proved to be in arrears of rent and since he had not paid the same to the petitioner-landlord, therefore, he was liable to be ejected and thereby directed him to vacate the demised shop within a period of two months. 7. Feeling aggrieved, the respondent filed appeal before the Appellate Authority against the impugned order as passed by learned Rent Controller. The said appeal had also been dismissed vide order dated 23.09.2009. 8. Learned counsel for the respondent/revision petitioner vehemently argued that the impugned orders as passed by learned Rent Controller and the learned Appellate Authority were liable to be set aside as the findings as given by them are erroneous, perverse and based on misappreciation of evidence produced on record. The learned Courts below did not apply their judicious mind. Overwhelming evidence had been produced on record by the respondent-revision petitioner to prove that infact Raj Kumar son of Tek Chand was owner of the demised shop which was part of land comprised in Khasra Nos.14244 and 14245 and no relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the petitioner and himself. He submitted that the demarcation of the land of demised shop was got conducted at his instance in Civil Suit No.107 of 1994 vide application Ex.A-5 and the report Mark B proved that the demised shop was part of Khasra No.14245. He had also produced evidence on record to prove that he himself had purchased the land of the demised shop from the power of attorney holder of Raj Kumar vide sale deed Ex.R2. The Courts below had wrongly held that the demarcation conducted by the Local Commissioner was not reliable and had gravely erred by ignoring the said report which was proved in accordance with law. With these arguments, it was urged that the impugned orders were liable to be set aside, and the revision petition deserve to be accepted. 9. It was argued by learned counsel for legal representatives of the petitioner that the findings given by the Courts below were well reasoned and did not warrant any interference. With these arguments, it was urged that the impugned orders were liable to be set aside, and the revision petition deserve to be accepted. 9. It was argued by learned counsel for legal representatives of the petitioner that the findings given by the Courts below were well reasoned and did not warrant any interference. In Civil Suit No.107 of 1994 titled as Santa Singh v. Raj Mal had been filed by the respondent himself claiming that he had been inducted into the demised shop as a tenant by the petitioner on payment of rent @Rs.450/- per month. In the same suit, the respondent had subsequently moved an application for amendment of plaint Ex.A-9 by taking a plea to the effect that the demised shop belonged to Central Government and thereby, he had been taking shifting stands. Further, during the pendency of the eviction petition, he got filed application for impleading Raj Kumar son of Tek Chand as a party by claiming that the said Raj Kumar was owner of three and half marlas of land of which the demised shop was a part. The said Raj Kumar had also filed a suit for declaration that he was owner in possession of the land over which the demised shop was existing against the respondent but the said suit was got dismissed as withdrawn. He submitted that the respondent could not go back from his admission previously made as to relationship of landlord and tenant between him and the petitioner and could not take contradictory stand. It was argued that the defence as taken by the respondent was false. The learned Rent Controller as well as learned Appellate Authority has rightly observed that it was beyond their scope to decide the plea of title in the ejectment petition. The respondent had failed to produce any evidence on record to prove that the petitioner was not landlord of the demised shop. Therefore, it was urged that the revision petition merited dismissal. 10. The only foremost question which is required to be considered by this Court is as to whether the respondent-revision petitioner was a tenant of the petitioner Raj Mal and was liable to be ejected from the demised shop due to non-payment of arrears of rent? Therefore, it was urged that the revision petition merited dismissal. 10. The only foremost question which is required to be considered by this Court is as to whether the respondent-revision petitioner was a tenant of the petitioner Raj Mal and was liable to be ejected from the demised shop due to non-payment of arrears of rent? The learned Rent Controller as well as the learned Appellate Authority had given concurrent findings that the existence of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties stood proved and had also observed that since the respondent had not made payment of arrears of rent of the demised shop w.e.f. 01.11.1992 to the petitioner-landlord, therefore, he was liable to be ejected. Both the authorities below had relied upon the averments made in Ex.A-2 copy of plaint of Civil Suit No.107 of 1994 titled as Santa Singh v. Raj Mal admittedly filed by the respondent-revision petitioner. A perusal of averments made in this plaint reveals that the respondent-revision petitioner while admitting the petitioner Raj Mal as owner, sought relief of permanent injunction against him and another person, for restraining them from interfering in his peaceful possession over the demised shop. Ex.A-4 is copy of rejoinder filed in the said suit wherein the averments made in the plaint were reiterated. Then from a perusal of Ex.A-5 which is certified copy of application shown to be filed by the revision petitioner in Civil Suit No.107 of 1994 for appointment of Local Commissioner for determining the factum of his possession over the demised shop, it is revealed that in this application also, the revision petitioner had asserted that he was tenant under Raj Mal on payment of rent @Rs.450/-. The claim of the respondentrevision petitioner was that the said suit had been got withdrawn by him subsequently. However, Ex.A-6 is copy of judgment passed in the Civil Suit No.107 of 1994 which reveals that the said suit had been dismissed on 15.10.1996 due to failure on the part of the plaintiff-Santa Singh to produce any evidence in support of his case. In this very suit, the respondentrevision petitioner is shown to have moved an application Ex.A-9 on 08.06.1996 for seeking amendment in the plaint by pleading that it had come to his knowledge that Sh. In this very suit, the respondentrevision petitioner is shown to have moved an application Ex.A-9 on 08.06.1996 for seeking amendment in the plaint by pleading that it had come to his knowledge that Sh. Raj Mal was not owner of the demised shop and this property belonged to Central Government and further that by exercising fraud and by deceitful means, Raj Mal was extracting rent from him by representing him as owner of the demised shop. All these documents go to show that the respondent had admitted that he was making payment of rent of the demised shop to the petitioner by acknowledging him as owner-cum-landlord of the demised shop. The plea shown to be subsequently taken by the revision petitioner during the pendency of Civil Suit No.107 of 1994 that it was Central Government who was owner of the demised shop and then the plea as taken in the written statement filed in the ejectment petition that Raj Kumar son of Tek Chand was the actual owner of the demised shop one contradictory pleas and obviously the same could not be considered by the learned Rent Controller while adjudicating upon the question that relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the parties or not? It was suffice for the purpose of decision of the ejectment petition by the Rent Controller that the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties was proved. The same was obviously proved by the petitioner and by producing documents Ex.A-2 to Ex.A-5 on record. The revision petitioner obviously made unambiguous admission which was rather in a form of declaration that he was occupying the demised shop as tenant under the petitioner Raj Mal. The admissions so made by him was best evidence of the fact that he considered the petitioner Raj Mal as owner of the demised shop. The subsequent withdrawal of this admission by him could not be accepted. Though he claimed that he was allured by the petitioner to file Civil Suit No.107 of 1994 and to make an erroneous admission but by saying so rather he himself proved that with the ill intention to become co-owner of the demised shop he had entered into an agreement with the petitioner which could not be stated to be legal at all. Undoubtedly, no document had been produced by the petitioner as to his ownership over the demised shops but the fact still remains that the respondent-revision petitioner had admitted him to be the same. Within the meaning of Section 2 (c) of the Act, a person need not necessarily be the owner to be a landlord and any person for the time being entitled to receive rent in respect of any building or rented land falls within the meaning of 'landlord' under the Act. It is well settled proposition of law that a tenant who had been let into possession cannot deny title of his landlord, howsoever defective it may be and in a case of eviction filed by a landlord against his tenant, it is only existence of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties which is to be worked out and question of title cannot be gone into and is beyond jurisdiction of Rent Controller. Reliance in this regard can be placed upon the authorities cited by learned counsel for the petitioner-landlord as Rajendra Tiwary v. Basudeo Prasad, 2002 (1) R.C.R. (Rent) 190; Bhogadi Kannababu & Ors. v. Vuggina Pydamma & Ors., 2006 (1) R.C.R. (Rent) 535; K.D.Dewan v. Harbhajan S. Parihar, 2002 (1) R.C.R. (Rent) 214 and M/s. Payal Vision Ltd. v. Radhika Choudhary, 2012 (2) R.C.R. (Rent) 347. Therefore, it is observed that notwithstanding the fact that the petitioner-Ral Mal had not produced any document as to his being owner of the demised shop, the factum of his being landlord of this property nonetheless stood proved on the basis of admission so made by the respondent revision petitioner in the previous litigation initiated by himself and he could not wriggle out of the same. 11. The revision-petitioner had also raised one more point to the effect that the demarcation report Ex.RW4/E as prepared by RW-6 Naib Tehsildar Satwinderjit Singh proved that the demised shop was existing over the land comprised in Khasra No.14245 and it was also proved that the entire land forming part of this khasra had been purchased by him vide sale deed Ex.R-2. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner argued that the learned Rent Controller had failed to take that fact into consideration. Ex.RW4/E is copy of a report which was prepared by RW-6 Satwinderjit Singh in a Civil Suit titled as Raj Kumar v. Raj Mal. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner argued that the learned Rent Controller had failed to take that fact into consideration. Ex.RW4/E is copy of a report which was prepared by RW-6 Satwinderjit Singh in a Civil Suit titled as Raj Kumar v. Raj Mal. RW-5 Gopal Kishan, Patwari in whose presence, RW-6 had conducted demarcation of land comprised in Khasra No.14245 had also proved this report. However, in the considered opinion of this Court, no relevance could be given to this report for the purpose of the instant case. Both RW-5 and RW-6 had admitted that no notice of conducting demarcation was given to the present revision petitioner. No pucca burji was affixed for the purpose of identification of the specific khasra numbers. Other khasra numbers around the demised shop had also not been located. Such report could certainly not be considered for the purpose of determining that the demised shop was part of land comprised in Khasra No.14245. Even otherwise, the question for determination before learned Rent Controller was qua the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and not the question of title. Therefore, it is held that the learned Rent Controller had rightly pondered over that point and committed no error in holding that such report could not be accepted for determining the relationship between the parties and holding that it stood proved that such relationship existed between the parties and further holding that since arrears of land had not been tendered by the respondent revision petitioner, therefore, he was liable to be ejected. The detailed and concurrent findings as given by learned Rent Controller and learned Appellate Authority are based on proper appreciation of the material placed on record and do not suffer from any error of law. The same even otherwise cannot be interfered by this Court in exercise of its powers under revisional jurisdiction which is confined only to find out that the finding of fact recorded by the authority below was in accordance with law and was not perverse. Resultantly, the revision petition is dismissed. 12. All miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.