At the outset, it is required to be noted that the suit premises was leased in favour of original Respondent No. 1 – original tenant – Bala Venkatram pursuant to the rental agreement dated 23.05.2007 executed by the Appellant herein. Therefore, the rental agreement was between the Appellant and original Defendant No. 1 – Bala Venkatram. Defendant No. 1 was put in possession as a tenant pursuant to the aforesaid rental agreement dated 23.05.2007 executed by the Appellant in favour of original Defendant No. 1 – original tenant – Bala Venkatram. Therefore, as such, it would not be open for the Respondents to deny the status of the Appellant as a landlady. Therefore, the original Respondents cannot challenge the authority of the Appellant to file an eviction petition. Even otherwise, considering Section 2(6) of the Act and considering the fact that Respondent No. 1 was paying the rent to the Appellant pursuant to the aforesaid rental agreement dated 23.05.2007, the Appellant can be said to be the landlord/landlady and therefore the eviction petition at the instance of the Appellant would be maintainable.