Judgment M.M.Kumar, J. 1. This is tenants petition filed under Section 15(6) of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973 (for brevity, the Act) challenging concurrent findings of facts recorded by both the Courts below holding that relationship of landlord and tenant exists between the parties and, therefore, refusal to pay rent would constitute a ground for their ejectment from the demised premises. On the basis of close analysis of the documentary as well as oral evidence, it has been concluded by the learned Appellate Authority in paragraph 16 that it is clear from all the documents filed on behalf of the parties that the tenant-petitioners are the tenants in the demised premises not only on the basis of sale deed but also on the basis of partition deed as well as the decree. Therefore, mere denial by the tenant-petitioners in their statement about the existence of relationship did not carry any weight. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has made an attempt to persuade me to accept an argument that provisional order of assessment should have been drawn by the Rent Controller and only after calling upon the tenant-petitioners to pay the rent in accordance with the assessment order as envisaged by Section 13(2)(i) of the Act, an order of ejectment could have been passed. In support of his submission, the learned counsel has placed reliance on a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Rakesh Wadhawan v. Jagdamba Industrial Corporation (2002-3)131 P.L.R. 370 (S.C.) as affirmed by the larger Bench in the case of Vinod Kumar v. Prem Lata (2003)11 S.C.C. 397. The learned counsel has also argued that the tenant-petitioners did not have any notice of the change of ownership for the purposes of payment of rent to the new owner. According to the learned counsel, in the absence of any such notice, no rent could have been paid to the landlord-respondents. 3. After hearing the learned counsel at a considerable length. In am of the considered view that this petition is devoid of merit and does not warrant admission. Both the Courts below have concurrently found on the basis of detailed evidence that there is relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. 3. After hearing the learned counsel at a considerable length. In am of the considered view that this petition is devoid of merit and does not warrant admission. Both the Courts below have concurrently found on the basis of detailed evidence that there is relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. It is well settled within these jurisdiction that once a tenant denies the relationship of landlord and tenant, then there is no obligation on the Rent Controller to record a provisional order of assessment as envisaged by Section 13(2)(i) of the Act and the ratio of the judgments in Rakesh Wadhawan s case (supra) and Vinod Kumars case (supra) would not be applicable. The rationale for the aforementioned view is that once the tenant denies the relationship, then drawing a provisional order of assessment would be an exercise in futility because the tenant would refuse to pay as it contradicts his stand. Such a plea has to be taken by the tenant at his own peril, if the law is to permit, first the adjudication of plea of relationship of tenant and landlord and on the basis of findings in affirmative that such a relationship exists, then to grant an opportunity would amount to putting premium on falsehood. In such an eventuality, the tenant can prolong the non payment of rent for a long time and could thrive on falsehood. If he is to succeed in his plea, then no adverse consequence would follow as he would not be under any obligation to pay the rent. The aforementioned view has been taken by this Court in the case of Hukama Devi and Ors. v. Bhagwan Dass,3 (2003-2)134 P.L.R. 371. 4. The argument of the learned counsel that a notice is required to be issued by the landlord-respondents as they have stepped into the shoes of their earlier landlord would not require any detailed consideration because it is not the case of the tenant-petitioners that they have been paying rent to their old landlord. It has no where been pleaded by the tenant-petitioners that an inter-pleader suit was filed by them for determination of the question as to who was entitled to the payment of rent or the rent was deposited in the Court to be disbursed later to the landlord-respondents on the basis of findings. Therefore, the argument is misconceived and is hereby rejected.4. Therefore, the argument is misconceived and is hereby rejected.4. For the reasons stated above, this petition fails and the same is dismissed.