Research › Browse › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

1998 DIGILAW 140 (HP)

BELA SINGH v. NEENA KAUSHIK

1998-07-29

LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA

body1998
JUDGMENT Lokeshwar Singh Panta, J.: Both these Civil Revision Petitions can be conveniently disposed of by this common order as the facts involved therein are same and similar and the parties’ arc also common. 2. Civil Revision No. 171 of 1998 has been filed by Shri Bela Singh petitioner - tenant under Section 24(5) read with Section 28(2) of H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to Rent Control Act) against three separate orders dated 29.5.1998, 2.6.1998 and tf.6.1908 passed by Rent Controller (II), Nahan, District Sirmour in Case No.10/6 of 1998 seeking the quashing of the said orders whereby his applications were dismissed. 3. Civil Revision No.209 of 1998 filed by the petitioner - tenant under Section 28(2) of the Rent Control Act is against the order dated 23.6.1998 passed in Civil Misc. Application Nd.73-N/5 of 1998 by Appellate Authority i (II), Nahan dismissing his application for transfer of the proceedings from Rent Controller at Nahan or Paonta Sahib. 4. This case has a chequred history. Shri Bela Singh petitioner is a tenant of Smt. Neena Kaushik respondent in the demised premises bearing M.C. House No. 2167, Ward No.3 near Chaughan, Nahan (Now -re-numbered as house No.812 Ward No.4 near Chaughan, Nahan). Smt. Neena Kaushik respondent - landlady filed eviction Petition No. 12/4 of 1975 before the Rent Controller, Nahan for eviction of petitioner -tenant. The said petition was allowed by Rent Controller, vide his order dated 30.11.1978. Against this order, petitioner -tenant preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority, Solan and Sirmour Districts which came to be dismissed on 31.7.1984. Feeling aggrieved and dis-satisfied the petitioner-tenant carried the matter to this Court Through Civil Revision Petition No. 148 of 1984 which too came to be dismissed on 23.7.1996. The petitioner -tenant was still not satisfied and filed SLP(C) No.21112/96 in the Supreme Court and his Special Leave Petition was also dismissed on 5.12.1997. 5. The respondent -landlady filed Execution Petition No.5/2 of 1996 on 24.9.1996 before the Rent Controller (II), Nahan. During the pendency of the execution proceedings, petitioner - tenant on 16.3.1998 moved Objection Petition No. 1/11 of 1998 under Section 47 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure alleging interalia that compromise between the parties had taken place on 8.3.1998, whereby the respondent -landlady agreed to keep the petitioner -tenant as her tenant in the demissed premises on monthly rent of Rs. 100/- instead of Rs. 30/-. It was further alleged that the petitioner-tenant will continue to occupy the premises as a tenant and he will not be evicted. As per the compromise, the petitioner -tenant paid to the respondent landlady all the arrears of rent upto 31st March, 1998 amounting to Rs. 8,500/- on 8.3.1998. He further alleged that it was assured by the respondent -landlady mat she will get her execution -petition on 17.3.1998. Respondent - landlady filed reply on 6.4.1998 to the objection petition and denied the execution of any such compromise having been entered into between the parties. She alleged that the alleged compromise was a forged and fabricated document. On the same day. i.e. 16.3.1998, application No.10/6 of 1998 was moved by the petitioner - tenant under Order 21 Rule 2 read with Section 151 C.P.C., on similar grounds mat he took in the objection petition with a prayer to issue notice to the respondent landlady to show .cause why the said compromise/adjustment should not be certified. Pursuant to notice of this application, the respondent - landlady appeared in the Court on 23.3.1998. She was confronted with the said document which she categorically denied having executed. She also denied her signature on the said compromise dated 8.3.1998. Her statement was recorded on oath by the Rent Controller on the same day. She asserted that the alleged agreement -cum-receipt was nothing but forged and fabricated document. She said that she never received Rs. 8,000/- nor executed any receipt as alleged by the petitioner - tenant. Thereafter, proceedings were posted for arguments by the Rent Controller. 6. Arguments on application under Order 21 Rule 2 C.P.C. were heard by the Rent Controller on 25.4.1998 and the case was adjourned for pronouncement of order on 2.5.1998. However, before the said order was announced, the petitioner - tenant filed an application under Section 28(2) of the Rent Control Act before the Appellate Authority for transfer of the proceedings from the Court of Rent Controller (II), Nahan to some other Rent Controller (II), Nahan to some other Rent Controller. The Appellate Authority issued notice to the respondent -landlady and comments of the Rent Controller were called for. In his comments, the Rent Controller denied all the allegations set out in the application praying for transfer of the proceedings. The Appellate Authority issued notice to the respondent -landlady and comments of the Rent Controller were called for. In his comments, the Rent Controller denied all the allegations set out in the application praying for transfer of the proceedings. Appellate Authority (I) dismissed the transfer application on May 15, 1998 having found the allegations devoid of merits. However, in para No. 12 of the order it was observed that tie Pent Controller must hold an enquiry with regard to the satisfaction of the decree as pleaded by the petitioner- tenant in application No. 10/6 of 1998 and the matte: was sent back to the same Rent Controller with whom the proceedings were pending. 7. After the file was received back by the Rent Controller, he posted the case for 26.5.1998. On 26.5.1998, the Rent Controller framed necessary issue pursuant to the observations made in para 12 of the order of the Appellate Authority and fixed the proceedings on 6.6.1998 for recording the evidence of petitioner - tenant. But, in the meanwhile some mere development took place. Ike petitioner-tenant moved a Misc. Application No.24/6 of 1998 dated 29.5.1998 through his counsel Miss Kiran Virk, Advocate praying that the respondent-landlady may be directed to be present in the Court for giving her specimen signatures in the presence of the Court for comparison and thereafter necessary opinion of the Handwriting Expert may be obtained. The Rent Controller disposed of the said application on the same day. Yet, another Misc. Application No. 25/6 of 1998 was filed by the petitioner - tenant alleging therein that in order to prove the genuineness of the signatures of the respondent -landlady on the disputed alleged compromise dated 8.3.1998, it was necessary that her disputed signatures be got compared with her admitted signatures en documents which were placed on the eviction petition No. 12/2 of 1975 and appeal file No.20-N/14 of 1978. This application, too, was dismissed on 2.6.1998 by the Rent Controller. The third application came to be filed on behalf of the petitioner -tenant for adjournment of the proceedings on various grounds which was also rejected by the learned Rent Controller on 6.6.1998. 8. This application, too, was dismissed on 2.6.1998 by the Rent Controller. The third application came to be filed on behalf of the petitioner -tenant for adjournment of the proceedings on various grounds which was also rejected by the learned Rent Controller on 6.6.1998. 8. The petitioner - tenant has assailed all the three impugned orders dated 29.5.1998, 2.6.1998 and 6.6.1998 of the Rent Controller (II) Nahan in one Revision Petition No. 171 of 1998 and also prayed for transfer of the proceedings from the Rent Controller (II), Nahan to some other Rent Controller. The prayer of transfer of the proceedings no more survives since separate Revision Petition No.209 of 1998 came to be filed against the order of the Appellate Authority dismissing his application for transfer. Now, the question survives for consideration in the present petition is whether the impugned orders passed by the Rent Controller are sustainable or not. 9. Mr. Sharawan Dogra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner- tenant urged that the order dated 29.5.1998 rejecting the application of the petitioner - tenant summoning the respondent - landlady forgiving her specimen signatures for comparison with her admitted signatures is apparently unjust and improper which has caused mis-carriage of justice to the petitioner - tenant. He contended that under Section 67 of the Indian Evidence Act, the petitioner- tenant was entitled to get the admitted signatures of respondent -landlady compared with her disputed signatures appended by her on compromise document dated 8.3.1998 and for proving the issue framed by the learned Rent Controller the presence of the respondent - landlady was essential. 10. I have perused the order dated 29.5.1998. The learned Rent Controller has observed in the impugned order that the respondent - landlady was called in the Court for admission and denial of the correctness of the alleged document dated 8.3.1998 and her signature which she categorically denied. Vide order dated 26.5.1998, the learned Rent Controller had framed issue and given opportunity to the petitioner - tenant to produce evidence in the objection petition moved by him. The onus was put on the petitioner-tenant to prove the genuineness of the alleged compromise/receipt and before the evidence was led by him application No.24/6 of 1998 was moved by him through his counsel for summoning the respondent-landlady. The onus was put on the petitioner-tenant to prove the genuineness of the alleged compromise/receipt and before the evidence was led by him application No.24/6 of 1998 was moved by him through his counsel for summoning the respondent-landlady. It was the duty of the petitioner-tenant o lead evidence and proves his allegation but instead of discharging his onus he had tried to get the document/receipt and the genuineness of signatures proved from respondent -landlady which is not permissible under law. Once the respondent - landlady has categorically denied the execution of the document/receipt and her signatures appended thereon, the learned Rent Controller did not think it necessary for the just decision of the objection petition filed by the petitioner - tenant to call the respondent -landlady and obtained her specimen signature. The reasoning of the learned Rent Controller in rejecting the application are based upon his satisfaction and this Court finds no illegality or impropriety in the impugned order. It appears that the application was filed by the petitioner-tenant with sole object to delay the disposal of the execution petition filed by the respondent-landlady as the parties had been litigating since the year 1975. Thus, the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner-tenant challenging the order dated 29.5.1998 are not tenable in the facts and circumstances of the case. 11. Vide order dated 2.6.1998 second application No.25/6.1998 moved by the petitioner - tenant seeking the specimen signatures of the respondent-landlady to be compared with her admitted signature and getting the report of the Handwriting Expert was dismissed by the learned Rent Controller. Mr. Dogra, learned counsel contended that the order was passed in un-holy naste manner and without considering the provisions of Section 75 of the Indian Evidence Act and thus unsustainable in law. According to the learned counsel, the petitioner-tenant by way of this application requested the Court to summon the file of eviction petition No. 12/2 of 1975 filed by the respondent - landlady and file of appeal No.20-N/14 of 1978 in which the documents duly signed by the respondent -landlady were to be put to her for comparison of her signature with the compromise/receipt dated 8.3.1998. Un- doubtedly, the documents of execution petition No. 12/2 of 1975 and appeal No.20-N/14 of 1978 are public documents as envisaged under Section 74 of the Indian Evidence Act. Un- doubtedly, the documents of execution petition No. 12/2 of 1975 and appeal No.20-N/14 of 1978 are public documents as envisaged under Section 74 of the Indian Evidence Act. It was for the petitioner-tenant to choose what type of evidence was necessary and proper to be adduced by him to prove the issue framed in the objection petition by the learned Rent Controller. The learned Rent Controller has observed in his order that it was the duty of the petitioner - tenant first to prove that the document/receipt dated 8.3.1998 is a genuine document and without discharging the onus laid on him the respondent -landlady could not be compelled to appear in the Court for the purpose of giving specimen signatures. Firstly, the petitioner- tenant ought to have appeared in the witness box and make the statement on oath and thereafter he could have examined the attesting witnesses in whose presence the alleged document/receipt was executed and the respondent landlady signed it. Without examining himself and his witnesses, the petitioner-tenant has been trying to compel the Court by filing second application for summoning the respondent-landlady to admit her signatures on the alleged document/receipt. The petitioner-tenant cannot be permitted to force the Court to summon the respondent -landlady for taking her specimen signatures for comparison with the admitted signatures once the first application on the same ground was rejected by the learned Rent Controller. It was not open for the petitioner - tenant to have moved the second application seeking the same relief and thereby pressing the learned Rent Controller to review his earlier order whereby the relief was already declined. This Court finds no apparent error on the face of the record or patent illegality or irregularity committed by the learned Rent Controller in dismissing second application on the same grounds which were already taken by the petitioner tenant in the first application. Thus, the contention of the learned counsel that the Rent Controller has exercised his jurisdiction vested in him illegally cannot be accepted. 12. The third application for adjournment of the proceedings of application No. 10/6 of 1998 listed by the learned Rent Controller on 6.6.1998 for recording of the evidence of the petitioner - tenant was filed on his behalf by counsel Ms. 12. The third application for adjournment of the proceedings of application No. 10/6 of 1998 listed by the learned Rent Controller on 6.6.1998 for recording of the evidence of the petitioner - tenant was filed on his behalf by counsel Ms. Kiran Virk on the ground that transfer application under Section 28(2) of the Rent Controller Act alongwith the stay application had been moved before the Appellate Authority (II), Nahan and the learned Application No. 10-/6 of 1998 shall not be passed by the Rent Controller till 15.6.1998. The learned Rent Controller rejected the said application. Third order dated 6.6.1998 has been challenged by the petitioner -tenant on the grounds inter alias (a) that the Appellate Authority had directed the learned Rent Controller not to pass final order till 15.6.1998 and despite restrained order, the learned Rent Controller rejected the prayer for adjournment which is illegal; (b) that it was brought to the notice of the learned Rent Controller that son-in-law of the petitioner - tenant had met with an accident at Dehradun and his condition was serious, therefore, the petitioner - tenant could not appear on 6.6.1998 for giving the evidence and even this prayer was not accepted and (c) that since the petitioner - tenant was approaching the High court challenging the impugned orders dated 29.5.1998 and 2.6.1998 by way of revision petition and further that transfer application was already pending before the Appellate Authority and the learned Rent Controller failed to appreciate the submissions of the petitioner - tenant and record the impugned order in mechanical manner. Un -disputedly, the learned Appellate Authority vide order dated 5.6.1998 directed the learned Rent Controller not to pass final order in the matter of document dated 8.3.1998 till 15 6.1998 but it appears that there was no order directing the learned Rent Controller to record the evidence of this petitioner - tenant on 6.6.1998 for which the proceedings were already fixed, nor the entire proceedings were stayed by the learned Appellate Authority. The learned Rent Controller was within his jurisdiction of recording the evidence of the petitioner-tenant and his witnesses, if any. On 6.6.1998 and challenge to the order on this ground is unsustainable. The learned Rent Controller was within his jurisdiction of recording the evidence of the petitioner-tenant and his witnesses, if any. On 6.6.1998 and challenge to the order on this ground is unsustainable. The ground of accident of the son-in-law of the petitioner -tenant was never brought to the notice of the learned Rent Controller by the petitioner-tenant in his application for adjournment nor by his counsel as there is no evidence on record to substantiate this plea of the petitioner-tenant. This plea has been taken only in the grounds of revision before this Court and not before the learned Rent Controller. Hence the plea raised is simply to be rejected. The next plea of the petitioner-tenant that he was approaching this court by way of revision petition against the impugned orders dated 29.5.1998 and 2,6.1998 appears to be incorrect for the reason that the revision petition was filed on June 10. 1998 in winch the order dated 6.6.1998 too has already been challenged. This ground was also not taken by the petitioner -tenant in his application seeking for adjournment of the case on 6.6.1998. A look of the order of the learned Rent Controller dated 6.6.1998 would go to show that the learned counsel for the petitioner-tenant was asked by the Rent Controller to examine the petitioner-tenant and attesting witness Shri V.D.Sharma. Advocate who was present in the Court but the petitioner -tenant or his counsel refused to examine the attesting witness and the case was adjourned on that day till 3.30 P.M. for recording the evidence on the correctness and genuineness of compromise document dead 8.3.1998. The order shows that clear stimulation was imposed upon the petition -tenant that in case he failed to examine himself and the attesting witnesses at 3.30 P.M., his evidence shall be closed. When the case was again taken up at 3.30 P.M. by the Ld. Rent Controller, the petitioner-tenant was not present in the Court but of course one of the attesting witnesses Sh V.D. Sharma, Advocate was readily available for examination. The order reveals that Ms. Kiran Virk, counsel for the petitioner - tenant had been asked by the Ld. Rent Controller to examine witness Sh V.D. Sharma, Advocate who was present in the Court but she flatly refused to examine the said witness. Sh. V.D.Sharma. The order reveals that Ms. Kiran Virk, counsel for the petitioner - tenant had been asked by the Ld. Rent Controller to examine witness Sh V.D. Sharma, Advocate who was present in the Court but she flatly refused to examine the said witness. Sh. V.D.Sharma. Advocate was examined as court witness by the learned Rent controller, and during his examination the learned counsel for the petitioner-tenant suddenly left the Court and on being called through her brother Dilbagh Singh who remained present in the throughout these proceedings, the learned counsel was not found available. The learned Rent Controller has observed that in the order dated 23.7.1996 passed by Hon’ble Single Judge of High Court in Civil Revision No. 148 of 1984 it was directed that on the given facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner-tenant was not entitled to be given any further .time to vacate the premises, therefore, he was ordered to be evicted forthwith. The learned Rent Controller also observed that despite this pre-emptory order passed by the Honble High Court, two years have already elapsed after framing of issue and the petitioner-tenant has failed to lead evidence rather he is playing the game* of hide and seek with the Court. The respondent - landlady was directed to produce herself in the Court for recording her statement on 12.6.1998. This order was passed by the learned Rent Controller in the presence of Shri Dilbagh Singh son of the petitioner-tenant and brother of Ms. Kiran Virk, Advocate representing her father. Looking to the contents of the order passed by learned Rent Controller, 1 am of the view that the aforesaid contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner-tenant deserves to be rejected without further considerations: 13. Mr. Sharawan Dogra, learned counsel for the petitioner-tenant next contended that Shri V.D.Sharma an attesting witness of the compromise document was never summoned by the petitioner -tenant to be examined as his witness and the Rent Controller had no power and jurisdiction to examine Shri Sharma as Court witness and the practice adopted by him was un - precedented and un- warranted under law. To buttress his submission the learned counsel has sought to take the help of Order 16 Rule 14 C.P.C. and provisions of Order 18 Rule 16 CPC. I have given my best consideration to the provision of both the orders and rules contained thereunder. To buttress his submission the learned counsel has sought to take the help of Order 16 Rule 14 C.P.C. and provisions of Order 18 Rule 16 CPC. I have given my best consideration to the provision of both the orders and rules contained thereunder. Under Rule 14 of Order 16, the Court is suo motu empowered to summon any witness who is stranger to suit or including a party to the suit if the Court thinks it necessary for doing substantial justice to the parties. The Court is also empowered to cause such person to produce any document in this possession. In the present case, no doubt, the petitioner -tenant had not summoned Shri V.D. Sharma, Advocate an attesting witness of compromise document dated £.3.1998 but for the purpose of finding out the correctness and genuineness of the said document and the signatures of the respondent-landlady appended thereto, the learned Rent Controller has exercised the jurisdiction vested in him under the provision of Rule 14 Order 16 C.P.C. Under Rule 1-A of Order 18, any parry to the suit without applying for summon under Rule 1 may bring any witness to give evidence or to produce documents. Thus, it was not necessary for the petitioner - tenant to have applied for summoning of Shri V.D.Sharma, Advocate who was an attesting witness of the alleged compromise -document and he could have been examined by the petitioner - tenant without such procedure as he was present in the Court and willing to give his evidence. The examination of Shri V.D.Sharma, as Court witness was started by the learned Rent Controller as appeared from the impugned order in the presence of Ms. Kiran Virk, but she left the Court room and did not choose to cross-examine him. From reading of Rule 16 of OrderJ8 I find that the provisions are of no help to the petitioner - tenant, and, therefore,-they are not attracted in the present case. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner-tenant that Ms. Kiran Virk, but she left the Court room and did not choose to cross-examine him. From reading of Rule 16 of OrderJ8 I find that the provisions are of no help to the petitioner - tenant, and, therefore,-they are not attracted in the present case. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner-tenant that Ms. Kiran Virk, Advocate-had left the court room for answering the call of nature and Shri V.D.Sharma-was examined in her absence by the Rent Controller, is not acceptable for the reason that it appears that the examination of Shri V.D.Sharma was started in her presence but she without informing the learned Rent Controller left the court room and did not return thereafter though her brother and son of the petitioner-tenant was present in the Court in whose presence the evidence was recorded by the learned Rent Controller. It was the duty of the learned counsel for the petitioner- tenant to watch the proceedings but it appears that the learned counsel invented the ground of going out of court room for answering the call of nature afterwards and incorporated the same in the grounds of revision petition filed in this Court. It is pertinent to note here that the grounds of revision petition are not even signed by the petitioner -tenant himself. The learned Rent Controller while examining Shri V.D. Sharma as court witness has not exceeded his jurisdiction vested in his under law and Shri Sharma was examined in order to discover proper proof of relevant facts about the correctness and genuineness of the alleged compromise document dated 8.3.1998 produced by the petitioner-tenant and to find out whether the respondent -landlady had singed the said document or not. The procedure adopted by the learned Rent Controller is not unwarranted and uncalled for as contended by the learned counsel and no prejudice appears to have been caused to the petitioner-tenant by examining Shri V.D. Sharma as court witness by the learned Rent Controller. The learned Rent Controller was within his power to examine Shri V.D.Sharma in the Court under Order 17 Rule 2 proviso (e) of the Code of Civil Procedure because Shri Sharma was present in the Court and he was willing to be examined on that day being marginal witness of the alleged compromise document. 14. The learned Rent Controller was within his power to examine Shri V.D.Sharma in the Court under Order 17 Rule 2 proviso (e) of the Code of Civil Procedure because Shri Sharma was present in the Court and he was willing to be examined on that day being marginal witness of the alleged compromise document. 14. The learned Rent Controller has passed the impugned orders on sound reasonings and the findings recorded by him are just and legal in the facts and circumstances of the case. Thus, in my considered view the learned Rent Controller in the exercise of his jurisdiction has acted legally and I find no material irregularity on the fact of the record to interfere with the order of the Rent Controller impugned by way of this revision petition. Civil Revision No. 209 of 1998 15. This revision under Section 28(2) of H.P. Urban Rent Control Act arises out of the order passed by Appellate Authority (II), Sirmour District at Nahan in Civil Misc. Application No. 73-N/6 of 1998 whereby the application of the petitioner -tenant for transfer of the proceedings from Rent Controller H Nahan to some other Rent Controller came to be rejected. 16. Mr. Sharawan Dogra, learned counsel for the petitioner -tenant contended that the said order is un-sustainable under law having been passed by the learned Appellate Authority without proper appreciation of the facts of the case. According to the learned counsel, the petitioner -tenant has reasonable apprehension in his mind that the learned Rent Controller who has passed three successive orders rejecting his applications impugned by him in Revision Petition No. 171 of 1998 will not get justice from the same Rent Controller, but the learned Appellate Authority has not taken these facts into consideration while rejecting the application for transfer of the proceedings. He also contended that justice should not only be done but justice should appear to have been done to the parties. The apprehension of the petitioner -tenant that he will not get justice from die learned Rent Controller Nahan (II) appears to have been gathered by him from the orders of dismissal of this application with costs by the Rent Controller. 17. The learned Appellate Authority called for the comments of the Rent Controller in which he denied all the allegations as set out in the application. 17. The learned Appellate Authority called for the comments of the Rent Controller in which he denied all the allegations as set out in the application. It is borne out from the record that the first application for transfer of the case was also dismissed by the Appellate Authority (I) vide order dated 15th May, 1998. The learned Rent Controller was under duty to expedite the disposal of the execution petition and objections pursuant to the order of this Court. The petitioner-tenant has been moving various applications in quick successions apparently with a design to scuttle the progress of the proceedings. It appears that the petitioner- tenant was aggrieved against the impugned orders passed by the learned Rent Controller on his application which he made one after the other. If judicial orders have been passed by the learned Rent Controller against the petitioner-tenant it does not mean that the Rent Controller was biased to the petitioner -tenant or he was in any manner partial in his attitude. From the perusal of the impugned orders, it cannot be assumed and presumed that these orders have been passed by the learned Rent Controller without authority of law and on the basis of showing biased attitude towards the petitioner-tenant. The mere apprehension of the prejudice or bias simply on account of un-favourable judicial orders passed by the learned Rent - Controller entertained by the petitioner-tenant is no ground for transfer of the proceedings from Rent Controller (II) Nahan to some other Controller. The learned Appellate Authority, Nahan has given detailed reasonings in its order impugned in this revision petition which according to rue are very sound and correct in the facts and circumstances of the case and I find no infirmity or perversity in the said order which calls for interference in this Revision Petition. The learned Appellate Authority has ruled upon some judgments of the High Court and apex Court in which broad principles have been laid down by the Courts to be borne in mind by the Presiding Officer of the Courts in the matter of transfer of the cases from one Court to another Court. The apprehension of partiality or bias being attributed to the learned Rent Controller by the petitioner-tenant in getting the case transferred to some other Rent Controller is baseless and unfounded. The apprehension of partiality or bias being attributed to the learned Rent Controller by the petitioner-tenant in getting the case transferred to some other Rent Controller is baseless and unfounded. His U grievances that the learned Rent Controller has been expediting the hearing of / the proceedings and for that matter he directed the petitioner-tenant to produce I the evidence and examine Shri V.D.Sharma as court witness and also passed some adverse orders on his applications are not sound and legal grounds for transfer of the case to some other Rent Controller. 18. For the aforesaid reasons, both the Revision Petitions are devoid of merits and accordingly, are dismissed. Stay order shall stated vacated. The Rent Controller, (II), Nahan is directed to decide the proceedings un-influenced by any observations made in this order in accordance with law. Costs on parties. The parties are directed thought their learned counsel to appear before the-learned Rent Controller (II), Nahan on August 10, 1998.