[Cites 12, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Raj Kumar vs Anisha Modi on 20 January, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
I. CR-4158-2025 (O&M)
Lalu Ram @ Lallu Ram . . . . Pe&&oner
Vs.
Anisha Modi . . . . Respondents
II. CR-4159-2025 (O&M)
Raj Kumar . . . . Pe&&oner
Vs.
Anisha Modi . . . . Respondents
****
Reserved on: 14.01.2026
Pronounced on: 20.01.2026
Pronounced fully/opera&ve part: Fully
****
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA
Argued by:- Mr. Aayush Gupta, Advocate
for the pe oner.
Mr. Lakshay Bector, Advocate
for the respondent.
****
DEEPAK GUPTA, J.
This order shall dispose of two revision pe ons men oned in
the tle, as both arise out of similarly worded orders passed by the learned Rent
Controller, Ludhiana and the learned Appellate Authority, Ludhiana, in two sep-
arate ejectment pe ons concerning the same premises.
2. In both ma)ers, the pe oner before the Rent Controller is the
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 oners herein), are tenants occupying two separate rooms in the
same property.
1 of 8
CR-4158-2025 (O&M)
CR-4159-2025 (O&M)
3. For the sake of convenience, facts are being taken from CR No.4158
of 2025, tled "Lalu Ram @ Lallu Ram versus Anisha Modi". The par es shall
hereina5er be referred to as the landlady and the tenant, respec vely, to avoid
any confusion regarding their status.
4. 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 on No. 877/2, falling in Khasra No.27//17, commonly known
as Mo 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 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 mes the rent was collected by the landlady herself and at other
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.
5. Defence of the Tenant : In his wri)en statement, the tenant
admi)ed his possession as a tenant, but denied the rela 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 on was prayed for.
6. Orders of the Courts Below : Vide order dated 12.03.2025, the
learned Rent Controller assessed provisional rent. The tenant challenged the
2 of 8
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
2025.
7. 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 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 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 tuted a &tle suit, which is pending adjudica on.
Reliance is placed upon the plaint of the said suit (Annexure P-3).
8.2 Further reliance is placed on a declara on dated 11.02.2020
(Annexure P-4) allegedly made by Vijay Gupta, father of the landlady, sta ng
that the property had been purchased in the name of his minor daughter
instead of his nephews, though the considera on was provided by his elder
brother. A)en 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 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 onship of landlord and tenant was framed, and that the ejectment order
3 of 8
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 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 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.
4 of 8
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.
10. This Court has heard learned counsel for both sides at length and
has carefully perused the record.
11. Analysis and Findings by this Court : The core issues that arise for
considera on are:
(i) whether provisional rent could be assessed despite denial of landlord-
tenant rela onship; and
(ii) whether non-framing of issues vi ates the ejectment order where the
tenant failed to deposit such rent."
12. 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 on of muta 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 ated her
claim by producing income tax returns for three assessment years preceding the
filing of the ejectment pe on, wherein rental income from the demised
premises has been duly disclosed.
13. 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 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.
5 of 8
CR-4158-2025 (O&M)
CR-4159-2025 (O&M)
Significantly, the tenant has not pleaded even the founda 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 on, or any contemporaneous document has been produced to substan ate
the claim of payment of rent to the alleged landlords. Moreover, these persons
Ashish Singhania etc. have raised 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.
14. In sharp contrast, the respondent-landlady has relied on primary
documentary evidence, including the registered sale deed, muta 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.
15. 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.
16. Effect of Denial of Rela?onship and Non-Deposit of Rent : The le-
gal posi on regarding the effect of denial of landlord-tenant rela onship and
the consequences of non-deposit of provisionally assessed rent is no longer res
integra.
17. 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 onship of
landlord and tenant does not absolve the tenant of his obliga on to deposit rent
or damages for use and occupa 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 on that a tenant can enjoy "holidaying from payment" merely by
dispu ng tle or rela onship. The Supreme Court further emphasized that the
6 of 8
CR-4158-2025 (O&M)
CR-4159-2025 (O&M)
essen al requirement is the character of the defendant as a lessee/tenant in oc-
cupa on of the premises, and once such status is admi)ed or established, the
obliga on to deposit rent subsists irrespec ve of ancillary disputes regarding -
tle.
18. The same principle has been consistently reiterated by this Court,
par cularly in Harvinder Singh & others v. Harvinder Kaur (decided on
02.02.2021), wherein a5er an exhaus ve considera 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 on, and the Rent Con-
troller is bound to pass an order of evic on.
19. The Division Bench of this court in Rajan @ Raj Kumar v. Rakesh
Kumar, 2010 (2) PLR 201, has authorita 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 on, without the need for framing of issues or conduc ng a full-fledged
trial.
20. This legal posi 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.
21. Dis?nguishing Judgments Relied Upon by the Tenant : The judg-
ments relied upon by the tenant do not advance his case.
22. In Manju Saini v. Balwinder Kaur (supra), the tenant had com-
pletely denied the tenancy itself, which is factually dis nct from the present
7 of 8
CR-4158-2025 (O&M)
CR-4159-2025 (O&M)
case, where the tenant admits his tenancy but disputes only the iden 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.
23. 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.
24. Conclusion : In view of the aforesaid factual matrix and se)led le-
gal posi 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 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 ng ejectment upon non-
payment.
25. Accordingly, finding no merit in the present revision pe ons, the
same are hereby dismissed.
26. A photocopy of this order be placed on the connected case file.
(DEEPAK GUPTA)
JUDGE
20.01.2026
Nee ka Tuteja
Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No
Whether reportable? Yes/No
Uploaded on.: 20.01.2026
8 of 8
