G. BIKSHAPATHY, J. ( 1 ) ALL these four Tr. C. M. Ps. can be disposed of by a common order. The petitioners are the tenants. Applications were filed by the landlord as early as in 1985 seeking eviction of the tenants under the provisions of the A. P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1961. All the applications were dismissed. Against which the landlord carried the matters in appeals in 1988 and since then matters are pending. ( 2 ) THE present Tr. C. M. Ps. are filed on the ground that the second respondent/second appellant in the appeals, who is an advocate, is interested in the matter and the property also belongs to him along with his father. It is also the case of the petitioners that the second respondent is openly canvassing that the appeal will be allowed. It is further stated that the learned Judge himself has transferred one RCC case to other Court in Gajapathinagaram and, therefore, it is their reasonable apprehension that they would not get justice in the hands of the present Presiding Officer. It is also further stated that the Presiding Officer is hastening the matter, which is causing serious anxiety in the minds of the petitioners and thus he was acting prejudicial of his interest. On that ground the transfer applications have been filed. ( 3 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioners, Smt. M. Bhaskaralakshmi submits that under sub-rule (2) of Rule 12 of the A. P. Buldings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Rules, 1961 (for short the Rules ) it is open for the High Court to order an application for transfer if there are sufficient grounds for such transfer. The learned Counsel submits that the petitioners have also filed a memo bringing to the notice of the Court about the matter which would lead to inevitable conclusion that there is a reasonable apprehension in the minds of the petitioners but, since such matters are not maintainable, the applications are filed before this Court for transfer. She reiterates the grounds mentioned in the petition stating that justice will not be meted out in the hands of the present Presiding Officer in view of the conduct of the Judge. ( 4 ) ON the other hand learned Counsel for the respondent, Mr. P. R. Prasad submits that the apprehension is ill founded. She reiterates the grounds mentioned in the petition stating that justice will not be meted out in the hands of the present Presiding Officer in view of the conduct of the Judge. ( 4 ) ON the other hand learned Counsel for the respondent, Mr. P. R. Prasad submits that the apprehension is ill founded. Further, this Court alrleady directed the appellate Court in a revision petition to dispose of the appeals as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of two months by an order dated 16-8-1999. In order to comply with the directions of this Court, in all probability the learned Presiding Officer must have induced the parties to proceed with the case. That cannot be construed as a ground to transfer the case. The learned Counsel for the petitioners tried to rely on certain decisions on the subject reported in Lachhman Singh v. Iqbal Singh, AIR 1933 Lahore 915 and Smt. Saraswathi Bai v. Acharya Vedbhushan, 1995 (3) ALT 887 : (1996 0 AIHC 1317 ). I do not want to refer those decisions, as the matter has to be considered under Rule 12 (2) of the Rules. It is only when this Court is satisfied that there are sufficient grounds to transfer the appeal it can do so. But the question is, whether sufficient grounds exist in this case for transfer of appeals. The learned Counsel for the petitioners vehemently submits that reasonable apprehension has to be judged on the subjective satisfaction of the learned Judge. Though the learned Counsel may be justified in stating that once reasonable apprehension is created in the minds of the party it is open for the party to seek transfer of the case, but that is not sufficient for ordering transfer. This Court also should be satisfied about reasonable apprehension. I am of the view that the petitioners can succeed that the reasonable apprehension entertained by them was such that a man of ordinary prudence also could arrive at such a conclusion with the set of available material the petitioners have not established the same in this case. The principal ground for transfer is, the learned Presiding Officer is hastening the matter. He resorted for recording the evidence of the appellants contrary to law and he has also transferred some cases from his Court to Gajapathinagaram Court. The principal ground for transfer is, the learned Presiding Officer is hastening the matter. He resorted for recording the evidence of the appellants contrary to law and he has also transferred some cases from his Court to Gajapathinagaram Court. In my considered view, these are not grounds, which can be construed as reasonable apprehension. It is not stated on what circumstances the learned Presiding Officer transferred the cases from Vizianagaram to Gajapathinagaram. If the Officer has any personal interest, it is always open for him to report the matter to this Court under sub-rule (1) of Rule 12 of the Rules referred to above. That is not the case herein. With regard to the hastening of the matter, no doubt this Court has already directed the appellate Court to dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of two months. Therefore, in al probabilities to meet the compliance of the orders of this Court he must have induced the parties to proceed with the case. That cannot be construed as reasonable ground for seeking transfer. Lastly, the Counsel submits that the property of the second appellant is the subject matter in the appeal and he is a practising advocate. Moreover, his senior is appearing for the other side. Therefore, it is likely that the Judge may lean towards the advocate who is conductng his case himself. This is not a reasonable apprehension. If this is to be accepted, no advocate will be able to defend his own case in any Court. It is for the Court to decide whether to hear the matter or not. If the appellate Court feels that for various reasons it was not inclined to hear the case, it is always open for it under in sub-rule (1) of Rule 12 of the Rules to report to this Court. That is also not the case here. ( 5 ) UNDER these circumstances, I am not satisfied that the petitioners have established reasonable apprehension so as to warrant transfer of the appeals from the Court of Vizianagaram to some other Court. Therefore, all the four Transfer C. M. Ps. are dismissed. Admittedly, the appeals have been filed in the year 1988 and they are pending for more than one decade. Under these circumstances, it is necessary that the appeals should be disposed of without any further loss of time. Therefore, all the four Transfer C. M. Ps. are dismissed. Admittedly, the appeals have been filed in the year 1988 and they are pending for more than one decade. Under these circumstances, it is necessary that the appeals should be disposed of without any further loss of time. The Appellate Court is directed to dispose of the appeals within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. However, it is made clear that the appellate Court shall dispose of the appeals with clear judicial conscience without taking note of the circumstances that have taken for filing applications and memo by the petitioners. No costs. Petition dismissed.