(Deepak Gupta, J.) - The facts necessary for decision of the present case are that the petitioner Surinder Kumar Sood (hereinafter referred to as the landlord) filed a petition for eviction of Shri Thaneshwar Lal Chadha (hereinafter referred to as the tenant) from the premises bearing Municipal No. M-202 in ward No. 5, Palampur consisting of two rooms, gallery, kitchen, toilet and veranda on the ground that the agreed monthly rent was Rs. 400/- per month and that the tenant had not paid the rent w.e.f. 1st January, 1991 to 30th April, 1993. In para 14 of the application it was alleged that the premises were let out to the tenant on 20.4.1973 but the rent was increased from time to time.

2.The tenant filed reply stating that initially the rent of the premises was only Rs. 20/- per month. This rent was later enhanced to Rs. 50/- per month and finally to Rs. 75/- per month in the year 1986. It was denied that the tenant had ever agreed to pay rent @ Rs. 400/- per month. It was submitted that the rent @ 75/- per month had been sent to the landlord but he had refused to accept the same. The landlord filed replication in which it was stated that a rent note had been executed by the tenant in the year 1990 whereby the rent had been fixed at Rs. 400/- per month. The tenant sought leave to file additional reply to these applications which was allowed. The tenant denied that any such document had been executed.

3.The landlord is support of his case produced the rent note Ext. A-1. This rent note is effective from 1.1.1991 to 30.11.1991 and the rate of rent reflected therein is Rs. 400/- per month. The landlord stepped into the witness box as PW-1 and stated that the tenant had agreed to vacate the premises but thereafter a compromise was arrived at and w.e.f. 1st January, 1991 the tenant agreed to pay the rent @ Rs. 400/- per month. AW-1, Sh. Dina Nath is a witness to the rent note. He stated that the rent note was executed and signed by the tenant in his presence and he (Dina Nath) had signed the same as a witness. To the similar effect is the statement of AW-3 Sh. Balwant Singh who is the other witness to the rent note Ext. A-1.

4.Sh. Sunil Kumar Chadha, son and attorney of the tenant appeared as RW-1. The gist of the statement of this witness is that his father has been unwell for the last many years. According to him, the tenant is paralysed and unable to look after himself and therefore the question of his signing the rent note does not arise. He denied that the signatures on the rent note are those of his father. He also stated that the premises in question were rented out to them many years back. Initially the rent was Rs. 20/- per month which was later increased to Rs. 50/- per month in the year 1981 and finally in the year 1986 the rent was enhanced to Rs. 75/- per month.

5.The case of the tenant is that the tenant Thaneshwar Lal Chadha suffers from paralysis and even mentally is unable to look after his own interest and therefore the signatures on the document Ext. A-1 are forged and not his. It was also argued that in the special power of attorney executed by Sh. Thaneshwar Lal Chadha on 4th August, 1993 he has affixed his thumb impression. However, on going through the case file I have found that originally Sh. Thaneshwar lal Chadha had executed a vakalatnama in favour of his counsel Sh. Onkar Krishan Manikatala on 1.8.1993. This bears the signatures of the tenant Sh. Thaneshwar Lal Chadha. These signatures are similar to the signatures on the rent note Ext. A-1. It is obvious that the tenant signed the vakalatnama filed by his counsel in Court. This clearly proves that the tenant was in a position to sign. The defence of the tenant that he could not sign and that the signatures on the rent note Ext. A-1 are forged is obviously a false plea. Therefore, I proceed to decide the case on the basis that the tenant had signed the rent note Ext. A-1.

6.The learned trial Court came to the con