ASHOK KUMAR THAPAR Vs. AMRIT LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is a medical practitioner. The suit premises are situated opposite the old Dayanand Medical College and Hospital, Ludhiana. It has been taken on rent by the petitioner from Manohar Wati. Respondent No. 1 to 3 (Amrit Lal and others) are the legal representatives of Manohar Wati. By virtue of the present revision petition, the petitioner challenges the order of eviction passed by the learned Rent Controller, Ludhiana, against him dated 3. 9. 1993 and also that of the learned Appellate Authority, Ludhiana, dated 28. 10,1997.

(2.) IN the petition for eviction filed by the landlord a number of grounds had been taken but the sole surviving ground regarding which we are presently concerned is the non-payment of rent and that the petitioner had sublet the property to Dev Raj, respondent No. 4.

(3.) NEEDLESS , to say that in the written statement filed, petition for eviction had been contested. It was not disputed that the property in dispute had been let to the petitioner for use of the property as clinical and medical consultant. According to the petitioner, earlier the rent agreed was Rs. 100.00 per month. It was increased to Rs. 145.00 per month in the year 1971. At that time he was given the back portion on rent. His signatures were procured by the landlord on documents described as licence deed. It was denied that the rate was increased to Rs. 400.00 per month as alleged. The petitioner had been signing the documents in good faith. As regards the document/lease deed by virtue of which the rent was slated to be increased to Rs. 400.00 per month, the plea raised was that the landlord respondent appears to have changed the first page of the agreement/document. It was denied that the arrears were due as claimed. As per petitioner, the petitioner had sent rent in the month of January, 1980 alongwith a letter and a cheque of Rs. 145/ -. The letter was refused. He subsequently sent another letter with the rent and that too was refused. It was denied that the property had been sub-let to respondent No. 4. Respondent No. 4 was slated to be an employee of the petitioner performing some clinical tests on the patients of the petitioner.