having fractional interest over the property, is required for the alleged occupation of the petitioner. For that purpose, all co-owners should join hands with the petitioner in filing the application and they should be in the party array of such petition. Even a pleading to the effect that the other coowners have consented to give the petition schedule shop room for the user of one of the co-owners, is not at all sufficient, as it can be withdrawn at anytime by any of the co-owners. So, it is a mandatory requirement that all coowners should join hands with the petitioner in filing the petition for eviction under Section 11(3) of the Act, if it really requires for the occupation of one of the co-owners. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the expression “landlord” as defined under Section 2(3) of the Act is wide enough to intake a person, who is entitled to receive rent and hence the petitioner herein comes under the purview of the expression “landlord” being a co-owner of the property. There cannot be any quarrel with the legal position that one of the co-
