Judgment S.S.Nijjar, J. 1. Admittedly, the petitioners were originally the tenants of one Mahindru. The complainant had purchased the property from the earlier owner i.e. Mahindru on 25.8.1995. The petitioners had continued to be in occupation as tenants/sub- tenants. The matter with regard to the status of the petitioners qua the present complainant is pending in appeal in the Court of District and Sessions Judge, Chandigarh. The FIR has been registered on the allegations that the two lease-deeds produced in court are forged lease-deeds. However, Mr. Baldev Singh has brought to the notice of this Court that all the four lease deeds which have been produced in Court, contain idential clauses. All of them do not contain a clause providing for 15% increase in rent. He further submits that the present FIR has been registered mala fide in order to put pressure on the petitioners so that they do not pursue the appeal which is pending against the order of the Rent Controller. I am of the considered opinion that these are matters which are not to be commented upon at this stage. All these factors will be examined by the trial court at the relevant time. 2. It, however, deserves notice that the arrest of the petitioners has been stayed by this Court on 14.6.2000. The petitioners have been regularly joining investigation. Apart from that, the evidence to be produced in this matter is documentary. This evidence is already on record of the Rent Controller and subsequently, in the Court of District and Sessions Judge. In view of the above, no useful purpose would be served by sending the petitioners into custody. 3. In view of the above, the application for anticipatory bail is allowed. In the event of arrest, the petitioners shall be released on bail to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer. Petition allowed.