JUDGMENT :

DEEPAK GUPTA, J.

This order shall dispose of two revision petitions mentioned in the title, as both arise out of similarly worded orders passed by the learned Rent Controller, Ludhiana and the learned Appellate Authority, Ludhiana, in two separate ejectment petitions concerning the same premises.

2. In both matters, the petitioner before the Rent Controller is the same landlady, namely Smt. Anisha Modi (respondent herein), whereas the respondents before the Rent Controller, namely, Lalu Ram @ Lallu Ram and Raj Kumar (petitioners herein), are tenants occupying two separate rooms in the same property.

3. For the sake of convenience, facts are being taken from CR No.4158 of 2025, titled “Lalu Ram @ Lallu Ram versus Anisha Modi”. The parties shall hereina5er be referred to as the landlady and the tenant, respectively, 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 Corporation No. 877/2, falling in Khasra No.27//17, commonly known as Moti 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 connection 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 Rs.700/-, under an oral tenancy coupled with delivery of possession, with an agreed enhancement of rent @ 15% a5er three years. Sometimes the rent was collected by the landlady herself and at other times 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 written statement, the tenant admitted his possession as a tenant, but denied the relationship 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 petition 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 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 petition.

8.1 Submissions on Behalf of the Tenant : Learned counsel for the tenant contends that once the relationship 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 admitted or undisputed relationship. 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 instituted a title suit, which is pending adjudication. Reliance is placed upon the plaint of the said suit (Annexure P-3).

8.2 Further reliance is placed on a declaration dated 11.02