anyone, however, the same lease in favour of the petitioner is not restricting the petitioner to give the said shop on rent to another person. The petitioner has given the shop in question to the respondent by execution of an agreement dated 01.03.2006 and the said agreement has been exhibited vide (Ex. P/2). The said execution of the agreement has been accepted by the respondent in his evidence and also the respondent accepted the fact that he was making payment of rent also. Hence the finding of Rent Control Authority is based on proper appreciation of oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties, which shows the tenancy agreement was existing and the rent was being paid. The definition of landlord includes the person who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive, the rent of any accommodation whether on his own account or on account of or on behalf of or for the benefit of any other person, the respondent would step into the shoes of the landlord as defined under Act 2011 coupled with the fact that the petitioner shall also step into the shoes of tenant for the reason that tenant includes the person by whom or on whose account or behalf rent is paid. For the purpose of adjudication of the application under the Act 2011, the landlord is not synonym to ownership except for payment & receipt of rent which is also held by the Division Bench of this Court in the matter of Ramneesh Kaushal (Supra). Hence the order of tribunal holding that mere execution of rent agreement is not sufÏcient to adjudge whether the petitioner is a landlord or not is a perverse finding and contrary to the settled position of law
