for Rs.39,000/- and other three dated 14.9.2002 of Rs.40,000/- each issued in the name of the respondent company. It is not clear as to which of the months these four Demand Drafts pertain and we are left to assume that these would be for the months starting from December 2002. Respondent No.1 is stated to have enhanced the rate of subscription from Rs.40,000/- per month to Rs.55,000/- in January 2003 and in spite of the pleas made by the Petitioner not to increase the subscription fee arbitrarily within a month of the start of the network, respondent did not relent. However, the Petitioner felt that he had no choice and decided to continue with the signals of the respondent company because of the popularity of its channels with the subscribers. The Petitioner further states that the subscription fee was increased from Rs.55,000/- to Rs.66,000/- soon after and in August 2003 the respondent again enhanced it to Rs.88,000/- According to the Petitioner he continued to pay the enhanced subscription fee as demanded by the respondent and in support of his having paid the subscription fee for the month of July enclosed copies of receipts indicating one payment of Rs.29,700/-on 23-7-2003 and another payment on 31.7.2003 of Rs.36,000/- which is stated to be for a subscription base of 1200 at a subscription rate of Rs.55/-. As such it appears that in the month of July, Rs.65,700/- was paid by the Petitioner to the Respondent No.1 as against the alleged enhanced fee of Rs.88,000/-. The disconnection of signals took place thereafter in August 2003 apparently because the Petitioner could not pay the enhanced subscription fee as demanded by the Respondent No.1.
