JUDGMENT Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J —Respondents No.2 to 4 are duly served, however, failed to put in appearance, hence, proceeded against exparte. 2. Heard. If not painful it is shocking to note that the petitioner-tenant having been ordered to be evicted from the demised premises long-back in the year 2004 and the order of ejectment attained finality on dismissal of the appeal by learned appellate Court on 16.05.2009, has sought the transfer of pending execution proceedings from the Court of learned Rent Controller-I, Kangra, to another Court, i.e. learned Rent Controller-II, Kangra, on the ground that an official working in the Court of learned Rent Controller, Kangra, has threatened him to vacate the demised premises, failing which he shall be evicted there-from forcibly. Since he has already been ordered to be evicted from the demised premises, therefore, now only execution part remains and for that it can not be believed by any stretch of imagination that the so called official has threatened him in the manner, as aforesaid. 3. Above all, no useful purpose would serve by seeking transfer of the execution petition from the Court of learned Rent Controller-I, Kangra, to that of learned Rent Controller-II, Kangra, because the so called official who has threatened him is posted in that very Court Complex. In my considered opinion, the application for transfer of the execution proceedings, has been filed with an ulterior motive to delay the same. In this view of the matter not only the petition deserves dismissal but with exemplary costs, so that such frivolous litigation is not brought to the Court. The petition, as such, is dismissed with costs of Rs.25, 000/-. The petitioner-judgment-debtor is directed to pay the same to respondent No.1-landlord on the next date of hearing before learned Rent Controller. Pending application(s) , if any, shall also stand disposed of. An authenticated copy of this judgment be sent to learned Rent Controller, for compliance.