ASHOK BHAN, J. - (1.) PRESENT revision petition has been filed by the tenant. Facts shortly stated are that property bearing Municipal No. 506/1 (shop situated at Panipat) is owned by Bhagwan Dass landlord-respondent (hereinafter referred to as the landlord ). The same was let out by him to Krishan Chand respondent No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as the tenant ). Faquir Chand, the other petitioner is the father of Krishan Chand.
(2.) LANDLORD filed ejectment petition on the plea that it had let out the premises to the tenant at a monthly rent of Rs. 400/- per month and the tenant had failed to pay the arrears of rent w. e. f. 1. 9. 1981 to 30. 4. 1984. Tenant had impaired the value and utility of the demise shop, that Krishan Chand-petitioner had sub let the demise premises to his father Faquir Chand, petitioner without the permission of the landlord. In the written statement filed, allegations of impairment value and utility of the shop of sub-letting was denied. It was averred that rent had already been paid for the period from 1. 9. 1983 to 30:6. 1984. Arrears for the period from 1. 9. 1981 to 30. 8. 1983 were tendered in Court alongwith interest at the rate of Rs. 200/- per month as the case of the tenant was that rent was Rs. 200/- per month and not Rs. 400/ per month as claimed by the landlord. Replication was filed. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:1. What is rate of rent? OPP 2. Whether respondents are liable to be evicted from the premises in dispute on the grounds mentioned in the petition? OPA 3. Whether present petition is a counter blast to suit for permanent injunction filed by Faquir Chand respondent. If so, to what effect? OPR.
(3.) WHETHER petition is malafide? OPR;