HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH I. CR-4158-2025 (O&M) Lalu Ram @ Lallu Ram Anisha v. Vs. . . . . Pe&&oner

same landlady, namely Smt. Anisha Modi (respondent herein), whereas the re- spondents before the Rent Controller, namely, Lalu Ram @ Lallu Ram and Raj Kumar (pe(cid:15)(cid:15)oners herein), are tenants occupying two separate rooms in the same property. NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.01.20 17:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-4158-2025 (O&M) CR-4159-2025 (O&M)

For the sake of convenience, facts are being taken from CR No.4158 of 2025, (cid:28)tled “Lalu Ram @ Lallu Ram versus Anisha Modi”. The par(cid:28)es shall hereina5er be referred to as the landlady and the tenant, respec(cid:28)vely, to avoid any confusion regarding their status.

Case of the Landlady : According to the landlady Smt. Anisha Modi, she is the owner of a property measuring 362 square yards, bearing No. 136-J, Municipal Corpora(cid:28)on No. 877/2, falling in Khasra No.27//17, commonly known as Mo(cid:28) Nagar, situated at Sherpur Kalan near Gajja Jain Colony, Ludhiana, by dint of registered sale deed bearing Vasika No. 8670 dated 27.06.1989. The electricity connec(cid:28)on in respect of the said property stands installed in her name. The tenant was inducted into one room of the said premises on

01.04.2016, on a monthly rent of ₹700/-, under an oral tenancy coupled with delivery of possession, with an agreed enhancement of rent @ 15% a5er three years. Some(cid:28)mes the rent was collected by the landlady herself and at other (cid:28)mes by her father. The tenant paid rent for January 2019 to the father of the landlady. Therea5er, owing to ailments suffered by her father, rent for the months of February and March 2019 was received by the landlady herself. It was specifically pleaded that the tenant failed to pay rent w.e.f. April 2019 onwards. On these pleadings, ejectment was sought on the grounds of non-payment of rent as well as bona fide personal requirement.

Defence of the Tenant : In his wri)en statement, the tenant admi)ed his possession as a tenant, but denied the rela(cid:28)onship of landlord and tenant with the landlady. His plea was that the premises had been taken on rent by him from Ashish Singhania, Amit Singhania and Rupen Singhania, sons of late Kuldeep Singla, residents of Model Town, Ludhiana, and that the landlady was a complete stranger to the tenancy. It was further claimed that rent had been paid to the aforesaid persons and that no arrears were due. On these averments, dismissal of the ejectment pe(cid:28)(cid:28)on was prayed for.

Orders of the Courts Below : Vide order dated 12.03.2025, the learned Rent Controller assessed provisional rent. The tenant challenged the NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.01.20 17:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-4158-2025 (O&M) CR-4159-2025 (O&M) said order by filing Rent Appeal No.96 of 2025, which remained pending, when the Rent Controller passed the ejectment order dated 15.04.2025, on account of the tenant’s failure to deposit the provisionally assessed rent. Against the ejectment order dated 15.04.2025, the tenant preferred Rent Appeal No.105 of

Both appeals were heard together and were dismissed by the learned Appellate Authority, Ludhiana, by a common order dated 28.05.2025. Aggrieved thereby, the tenant has approached this Court by way of the present revision pe(cid:28)(cid:28)on.

8.1 Submissions on Behalf of the Tenant : Learned counsel for the tenant contends that once the rela&onship of landlord and tenant was specifically denied, the Rent Controller ought not to have assessed provisional rent, as the assessment pre-supposes the existence of an admi)ed or undisputed rela(cid:28)onship. It is further argued that the tenant had taken the premises on rent from the cousins of the landlady, namely Ashish Singhania and others, who have already ins(cid:28)tuted a &tle suit, which is pending adjudica(cid:28)on. Reliance is placed upon the plaint of the said suit (Annexure P-3).

8.2 Further reliance is placed on a declara(cid:28)on dated 11.02.2020 (Annexure P-4) allegedly made by Vijay Gupta, father of the landlady, sta(cid:28)ng that the property had been purchased in the name of his minor daughter instead of his nephews, though the considera(cid:28)on was provided by his elder brother. A)en(cid:28)on is also drawn to the Wills dated 13.11.2019 (Annexure P-5 & P-6) executed by the parents of the landlady, purportedly disinheri(cid:28)ng her, which are stated to be the subject ma)er of another civil suit filed by the landlady (Annexure P-7).

8.3 On the strength of these circumstances, it is argued that the assessment of provisional rent was unwarranted, that no issue regarding the rela(cid:28)onship of landlord and tenant was framed, and that the ejectment order NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.01.20 17:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-4158-2025 (O&M) CR-4159-2025 (O&M) was passed without affording an opportunity to lead evidence. Consequently, it is urged that the impugned orders are illegal and the ma)er deserves remand.

8.4 Reliance is placed on several judgments including CR No.958 of 2020 - “Manju Saini @ Manjit Kaur vs. Balwinder Kaur” decided by a co- ordinate Bench of this Court on 10.07.2024; “Tek Chand vs. Harbans Lal” 2023(2) RCR(Rent) 33; “M/s Chopra Jewellers vs. Rajender Pal Gupta” 2010(1) RCJ 364; “Hukma Devi vs. Bhagwan Dass” 2003(1) RCR (Rent) 533; “Yashpal Singla vs. Vijay Kumar” 2004(1) RCR (Rent) 718; and “Archana Kapoor vs. Goyal Brothers” 2011(10) RCR(Civil) 266.

9.1 Submissions on Behalf of the Landlady : Per contra, learned counsel for the landlady supports the impugned orders, submiHng that the landlady has placed on record cogent documentary evidence, including a registered sale deed of 1989, muta(cid:28)on entries, electricity bills, and income tax returns for the assessment years 2017-18, 2018-19 and 2019-20, wherein rental income from the demised premises has been duly reflected.

9.2 It is contended that the tenant has failed to produce any document whatsoever to establish that he ever took the premises on rent from Ashish Singhania or others, or that any rent was ever paid to them. It is further argued that the declaratory suit filed by the cousins of the landlady in the year 2024 i.e., decades a5er execu(cid:28)on of the sale deed and long a5er the death of their father in 2005, does not dilute the landlady’s status.

9.3 It is also contended that the Wills executed by the parents of the landlady are wholly irrelevant, as they pertain only to property owned by the testators and cannot affect property standing in the exclusive ownership of the landlady.

9.4 Reliance is placed on “Asha Rani Gupta vs. Sri Vineet Kumar” 2022 (3) RCR(Civil) 540; “Rajan @ Raj Kumar vs. Rakesh Kumar” 2010(2) PLR 201; “Madan Lal vs. Baldev Raj” 2004(2) PLR 834; “Harvinder Singh vs. NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.01.20 17:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-4158-2025 (O&M) CR-4159-2025 (O&M) Harvinder Kaur” 2021(1) RCR(Rent) 362 and “Vivek Goel vs. Devender Singh Parmar” 2025(1) RCR(Rent) 424.

This Court has heard learned counsel for both sides at length and has carefully perused the record.

Analysis and Findings by this Court : The core issues that arise for considera(cid:28)on are: (i) whether provisional rent could be assessed despite denial of landlord- tenant rela(cid:28)onship; and (ii) whether non-framing of issues vi(cid:28)ates the ejectment order where the tenant failed to deposit such rent.”

It is the specific and consistent case of the respondent-landlady, Smt. Anisha Modi, that she had purchased the property, of which the demised rooms form part, by virtue of a registered sale deed dated 27.06.1989, followed by sanc(cid:28)on of muta(cid:28)on in her favour. It is further her categorical plea that the tenant was inducted into the demised premises on 01.04.2016 at a monthly rent of ₹700/-, with an agreed enhancement a5er three years. It is also her pleaded case that rent was generally collected by her, except for the month of January 2019, when it was collected by her father, and that rent for February and March 2019 was paid by the tenant directly to her. She has further substan(cid:28)ated her claim by producing income tax returns for three assessment years preceding the filing of the ejectment pe(cid:28)(cid:28)on, wherein rental income from the demised premises has been duly disclosed.

On the other hand, a careful perusal of the wri)en statement filed by the tenant (Annexure P-2) reveals that while he does not deny his status as a tenant in the demised premises, he seeks to disown the rela(cid:28)onship of landlord and tenant with the respondent alone, by alleging that he had taken the premises on rent from Ashish Singhania, Amit Singhania and Rupen Singhania, cousins of the landlady. NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.01.20 17:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-4158-2025 (O&M) CR-4159-2025 (O&M) Significantly, the tenant has not pleaded even the founda(cid:28)onal facts necessary to support such a defence. There is no averment as to when the alleged tenancy under the said persons commenced, at what rate rent was fixed, or in what manner rent was paid. More importantly, no rent note, rent receipt, bank trans- ac(cid:28)on, or any contemporaneous document has been produced to substan(cid:28)ate the claim of payment of rent to the alleged landlords. Moreover, these persons Ashish Singhania etc. have raised (cid:28)tle dispute with the landlady by filing suit in 2024 by assailing her sale deed of 1989 and that too much a5er the death of their father Kuldeep in 2005.

In sharp contrast, the respondent-landlady has relied on primary documentary evidence, including the registered sale deed, muta(cid:28)on entries, electricity bills, and income tax returns for the assessment years 2017–18, 2018–19 and 2019–20, all of which consistently reflect her ownership and re- ceipt of rental income from the demised premises.

In these circumstances, this Court finds no infirmity in the ap- proach adopted by the learned Rent Controller in assessing the provisional ar- rears of rent and, upon failure of the tenant to deposit the same, passing the ejectment order.

Effect of Denial of Rela?onship and Non-Deposit of Rent : The le- gal posi(cid:28)on regarding the effect of denial of landlord-tenant rela(cid:28)onship and the consequences of non-deposit of provisionally assessed rent is no longer res integra.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Asha Rani Gupta v. Sri Vineet Ku- mar, (supra), has unequivocally held that a mere denial of the rela(cid:28)onship of landlord and tenant does not absolve the tenant of his obliga(cid:28)on to deposit rent or damages for use and occupa(cid:28)on, unless such payment is shown to have been made in a lawful and bona fide manner. The Apex Court has categorically re- jected the no(cid:28)on that a tenant can enjoy “holidaying from payment” merely by dispu(cid:28)ng (cid:28)tle or rela(cid:28)onship. The Supreme Court further emphasized that the NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.01.20 17:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-4158-2025 (O&M) CR-4159-2025 (O&M) essen(cid:28)al requirement is the character of the defendant as a lessee/tenant in oc- cupa(cid:28)on of the premises, and once such status is admi)ed or established, the obliga(cid:28)on to deposit rent subsists irrespec(cid:28)ve of ancillary disputes regarding (cid:28)- tle.

The same principle has been consistently reiterated by this Court, par(cid:28)cularly in Harvinder Singh & others v. Harvinder Kaur (decided on

02.02.2021), wherein a5er an exhaus(cid:28)ve considera(cid:28)on of the judgments in Rakesh Wadhawan v. M/s Jagdamba Industrial Corpora?on 2002 (1) RCR (Rent) 514; Vinod Kumar v. Prem Lata 2003 (2) RCR (Rent) 329, and Madan Lal v. Baldev Raj 2004 (2) PLJ 834, it has been conclusively held that once provi- sional rent is assessed and the tenant fails to comply with the statutory man- date of deposit, nothing further survives for adjudica(cid:28)on, and the Rent Con- troller is bound to pass an order of evic(cid:28)on.

The Division Bench of this court in Rajan @ Raj Kumar v. Rakesh Kumar, 2010 (2) PLR 201, has authorita(cid:28)vely se)led the controversy by approv- ing the view taken in Madan Lal v. Baldev Raj (supra), and expressly disapprov- ing the contrary view in Rajinder Lal vs. Gopal Krishan 2006 (1) RCR (Rent) 438, holding that failure to deposit provisionally assessed rent necessarily results in evic(cid:28)on, without the need for framing of issues or conduc(cid:28)ng a full-fledged trial.

This legal posi(cid:28)on has been reaffirmed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Vivek Goel v. Devender Singh Parmar, 2025 (1) RCR (Rent) 424, wherein it has been categorically held that once the tenant fails to comply with the order of provisional assessment, the argument that issues were required to be framed or that evidence was required to be led is wholly untenable.

Dis?nguishing Judgments Relied Upon by the Tenant : The judg- ments relied upon by the tenant do not advance his case.

In Manju Saini v. Balwinder Kaur (supra), the tenant had com- pletely denied the tenancy itself, which is factually dis(cid:28)nct from the present NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.01.20 17:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-4158-2025 (O&M) CR-4159-2025 (O&M) case, where the tenant admits his tenancy but disputes only the iden(cid:28)ty of the landlord. Similarly, in Tek Chand v. Harbans Lal (supra), the dispute between landlord & tenant was inter se the family members, with ownership of the prop- erty itself being clouded. The factual matrix therein bears no resemblance to the present case, where the respondent’s ownership is supported by a decades- old registered sale deed and consistent documentary evidence.

The procedure adopted by the Rent Controller in assessing provi- sional rent and passing an ejectment order on non-compliance is fully in conso- nance with the statutory scheme and binding precedents.

Conclusion : In view of the aforesaid factual matrix and se)led le- gal posi(cid:28)on, this Court is of the considered opinion that the orders passed by the learned Rent Controller and the learned Appellate Authority are well-rea- soned, legally sound, and free from any perversity or jurisdic(cid:28)onal error. The learned Appellate Authority has correctly appreciated both the factual and legal aspects of the ma)er and has rightly dismissed the appeals filed by the tenant against the orders assessing provisional rent and direc(cid:28)ng ejectment upon non- payment.

Accordingly, finding no merit in the present revision pe(cid:28)(cid:28)ons, the same are hereby dismissed.

A photocopy of this order be placed on the connected case file. (DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE

20.01.2026 Nee(cid:15)ka Tuteja Whether speaking/reasoned? Whether reportable? Yes/No Yes/No Uploaded on.: 20.01.2026 NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.01.20 17:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document