Denial of Landlord’s Title No Ground to Avoid Rent: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Eviction for Non-Payment of Provisionally Assessed Rent

“Tenant cannot take a holiday from payment merely by disputing the identity of the landlord” — In a significant judgment Punjab and Haryana High Court upheld the eviction of two tenants who had failed to deposit provisionally assessed rent, despite admitting possession as tenants. Justice Deepak Gupta reinforced the settled legal position that denial of the landlord’s title or identity does not absolve a tenant from the obligation to deposit rent, once the tenancy and possession are admitted.

Invoking the principles laid down by the Supreme Court and several authoritative High Court decisions, the Court ruled that non-framing of issues or pendency of title disputes does not vitiate the Rent Controller’s jurisdiction to assess provisional rent under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949.

“Mere Denial of Relationship Does Not Bar Assessment of Provisional Rent”: Tenant Admitted Possession But Failed to Comply With Rent Controller’s Direction

The dispute arose from two identical ejectment petitions filed by landlady Anisha Modi in respect of two rooms within the same Ludhiana property. The tenants, Lalu Ram and Raj Kumar, while admitting their status as tenants, claimed they were not inducted by the landlady, but by her cousins, namely Ashish, Amit, and Rupen Singhania.

Rejecting this defence, the Court observed:

“While the tenant does not deny his status as a tenant in the demised premises, he seeks to disown the relationship of landlord and tenant with the respondent alone, by alleging tenancy under her cousins. Significantly, the tenant has not pleaded even the foundational facts necessary to support such a defence.”

Justice Deepak Gupta found that no documentary evidence had been placed on record by the tenants to support their version—no rent receipts, no rent agreement, nor any bank transaction to establish rent payment to the alleged landlords.

In contrast, the landlady had produced a registered sale deed dating back to 1989, mutation entries, electricity bills, and income tax returns from 2017 to 2020 reflecting rent received from the very premises in question.

Eviction Consequence of Tenant’s Failure to Deposit Rent — “Nothing Further Survives for Adjudication”

The Rent Controller had passed an order on 12.03.2025, assessing provisional rent based on the landlady’s documents. Upon the tenants’ failure to deposit the same, an ejectment order was passed on 15.04.2025, upheld in appeal by the Appellate Authority on 28.05.2025. Before the High Court, the tenants argued that the non-framing of issues and absence of opportunity to lead evidence vitiated the orders.

Rejecting the argument, the Court held:

“Once provisional rent is assessed and the tenant fails to comply with the statutory mandate of deposit, nothing further survives for adjudication, and the Rent Controller is bound to pass an order of eviction.”

The Court relied heavily on Asha Rani Gupta v. Sri Vineet Kumar, (2022) 3 RCR (Civil) 540 (SC), where the Supreme Court held that tenants cannot “holiday from payment” simply by raising title disputes, especially when their status as occupants under a lease is admitted.

Similarly, in Harvinder Singh v. Harvinder Kaur, Vinod Kumar v. Prem Lata, and Rakesh Wadhawan v. Jagdamba Industrial Corporation, it has been consistently held that failure to deposit rent provisionally assessed under Section 13(2)(i) leaves no room for further trial or framing of issues.

Dispute Over Ownership Not a Valid Excuse: “Pending Declaratory Suit by Landlady’s Cousins Is Irrelevant”

One of the tenants’ core defences was that a title suit had been filed in 2024 by the landlady’s cousins challenging her ownership, and that Wills executed by her parents in 2019 had allegedly disinherited her.

Dismissing this line of argument, the Court clarified:

“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.”

Further, the declaratory suit filed by her cousins in 2024, decades after the 1989 sale deed and long after the death of their father in 2005, was held to be inconsequential for the purpose of determining landlord-tenant relationship.

The Court observed:

“Ownership under a registered sale deed cannot be lightly displaced by vague claims raised decades later, particularly when the tenant has acknowledged possession and made rent payments, at least on occasion, directly to the landlady.”

Distinction Between Denial of Tenancy and Denial of Landlord’s Identity Reiterated

In a key legal distinction, the Court noted that while complete denial of tenancy may require framing of issues and evidence, a mere dispute over the landlord’s identity, without denying possession or tenancy, does not prevent the Rent Controller from assessing provisional rent.

“The judgments relied upon by the tenant pertain to cases where tenancy itself was denied, or where ownership was deeply clouded. In the present case, the landlady’s ownership is supported by a decades-old registered sale deed and consistent documentary evidence.”

The coordinate Bench’s ruling in Manju Saini v. Balwinder Kaur (CR No. 958 of 2020) and Tek Chand v. Harbans Lal, cited by the petitioners, were held to be factually distinguishable and inapplicable.

High Court Affirms Ejectment, Reiterates Settled Law

Concluding the matter, Justice Deepak Gupta held that the orders of the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority suffered from no legal infirmity. The procedure followed was held to be fully in line with binding judicial precedents.

“The learned Appellate Authority has correctly appreciated both the factual and legal aspects of the matter and has rightly dismissed the appeals filed by the tenant… The revision petitions are hereby dismissed.”

This judgment decisively affirms the principle that a tenant cannot escape eviction for non-payment of provisionally assessed rent merely by raising a title dispute or questioning the identity of the landlord, especially when possession and tenancy are admitted.

Once the Rent Controller has assessed provisional rent under Section 13(2)(i) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, the tenant must comply. Non-framing of issues or pendency of title suits does not grant immunity from the consequences of non-payment.

Date of Decision: 20 January 2026