Rajive Bhalla, J.

1. The petitioner-tenant, has filed this petition, under Section 15(5)A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, (hereinafter referred to as the Act), impugning the order of ejectment passed by the Rent Controller, Hoshiarpur, as also the order of dismissal of her appeal, passed by the Appellate Authority, Hoshiarpur.

2. The petitioner, admittedly, was inducted as a tenant in the demised premises in 1994 by Sh. Satvir, who filed an ejectment petition dated 4.10.1996, praying for the petitioners ejectment for non payment of rent. During the pendency of this petition, Satvir passed away on 15.12.1998. The respondents Manmohan Singh and Madan Mohan sons of Mehnga Singh, alleging that they had inherited ownership of the demised premises, filed an application for their being impleaded as legal representatives. The said application was allowed vide order dated 2.12.1999 and the respondents were impleaded as petitioners. The Rent Controller, vide order dated 21.12.1999, held the rate of rent to be Rs. 450/- per month and in addition, held that the tenant was required to pay water charges @ Rs. 15/- per month and sewerage charges @ Rs. 5/- per month. As the tenant had tendered rent upto April 1997 at the determined rate, the petition was dismissed.

3. During the pendency of the above, the respondents, namely; Manmohan Singh and Madan Mohan, filed another petition for ejectment, on 5.2.1999, on the plea of non payment of rent from 1.5.1997. The petitioner, appeared before the trial Court but did not tender any rent. She raised a preliminary objection that the respondents were neither owners nor landlords and, therefore, had no locus standi to institute the petition. The petitioner also denied relationship of landlord and tenant with Sat Vir, the deceased landlord. On the basis of the respective pleadings, the learned Rent Controller framed the following issues:

1. Whether respondent is in arrears of rent? OPA

2. Whether the applicant has no locus standi to file the present application? OPR.

3. Relief.

4. On issue No. 2, the learned Rent Controller, held that the respondents were owners/landlords of the premises in dispute and, therefore, negatived the petitioners contention that the respondents had no locus standi to maintain the petition for ejectment. On issue No. 1, it was held that as the petitioner failed to tender rent at any stage of the proceedings, she was liable to be ejected.

5. Aggrieved by the aforementioned order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority, Hoshiarpur. Vide judgment dated 5.5.2003, the Appellate Authority, set aside the order, passed by the Rent Controller and remitted the matter for a decision afresh, by directing the Rent Controller, to make a provisional assessment, of rent, the interest due thereon and the costs to be paid by the tenant and thereafter, call upon the petitioner to tender rent. The respondent, however, filed C.R. No. 5497 of 2003, impugning the correctness of the order. Vide order dated 10.2.205, the revision was accepted and the order passed by the Appellate Authority, remitting the matter to the Rent Controller was set aside. The Appellate Authority was directed to decide the appeal in accordance with law. After hearing counsel for the parties and perusing the record, the Appellate Authority, Hoshiarpur, dismissed the appeal vide order dated 1.5.2006.

6. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioners ejectment had been ordered on the sole ground that she failed to tender rent, at any stage of the proceedings. It is submitted that the petitioner raised a bonafide dispute, as to the status of the respondents i.e. their ownership and their locus standi to maintain the petition for ejectment. The bonafides of this peal are established by the fact that the respondents filed Civil Suit No. 320 of 1999, against their mother, praying for a declaration, that they were owners of the demised premises. The petitioner, therefore, was