Heard Sri G.C. Sinha, learned counsel for petitioner, Sri Nripendra Mishra, Advocate holding brief of Sri Manish Kumar, learned counsel for opposite party Nos. 2 & 3 and perused the record.
Facts in brief of the present case are that initially Sri Ram Autar Khandelwal filed an application under Section 21(1)(A) of U.P. Act 13 of 1972 for release of the premises in question, registered as P.A. Case No. 4 of 2005 before the Prescribed Authority/Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Sadar, Pratapgarh. Thereafter, in the said suit an application for cross examination has been moved, rejected by O.P. No. 3.
Aggrieved by the same, for redressal of his grievances, petitioners approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No. 5 (R/C) of 2010, during the pendency of the litigation before this Court, the Prescribed Authority has decided and allowed the release application by order dated 16.02.2010,as such petitioners/tenant preferred a rent appeal (R.C. A. No. 1 of 2010 (Samalat Ullah and others Vs. Ram Autar Kahndelwal and others).
In the meantime, the writ petition No. 5 (R/C) of 2010 filed by petitioner came up for hearing before this Court, disposed by order dated 05.05.2010, in pursuance to the same, appellate authority by order dated 08.09.2010 (Annexure No. 2) allowed the appeal, set aside the order dated 16.02.2010 and remanded the matter to the prescribed authority to decide the same.
After remand of the matter, certain proceedings have taken place before the prescribed authority and as per the version of the petitioner, the prescribed authority did not afford adequate opportunity to them to put forward their defence and the matter is fixed for final hearing.
At this stage, an application under Section 24 CPC has been moved by the petitioners/tenant for transfer of the case from the court concerned i.e. O.P. No. 3 (Prescribed Authority/ Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Sadar, Pratapgarh), accordingly, a case (M.N.R. Case No. 94 of 2011, Salamat Ullah Vs. Ram Autar) registered before the District Judge, Pratapgarh/O.P. No. 2, rejected by impugned order dated 19.10.2011, hence present writ petition has been filed before this Court.
Sri G.C. Sinha, learned counsel for petitioner while assailing the impugned order submits that petitioners have came to know that the prescribed authority in clear terms said that he will maintain earlier order passed by him in respect to the release of the premises, as such they have no hope to get justice from his end. So, the P.A. Case No. of 2005 may be transfer from the court of O.P. No. 3. However, the learned District Judge contrary to the facts of the case, rejected the application moved on behalf of the petitioner under Section 24 CPC by order dated 19.10.2011, as such the same is illegal, arbitrary and in contravention to the principles of natural justice and fair play.
I have learned counsel for parties and perused the record.
The basic principle governing the transfer of a petition under Section 24 of the C.P.C. is that the petition is not to be dealt with in a light-hearted manner and transfer of a case from one Court to another should not be granted readily for any fancied notion of the petitioning litigant because of the reason that such transfer of a case from one Judge to another in effect casts doubt on the integrity, competence and reputation of the concerned Judge. Unless and until a sufficiently cogent ground is disclosed transfer should not be allowed as a matter of course. The Court from which the case is sought to be transferred must be shown to have disclosed a definitely unfair attitude or biased frame of mind against the petitioner.
Transfer can only be ordered when the party has reasonable apprehension that justice will be denied to him. The mere fact that the party has suspicion in this regard could not constitute a valid ground. Mere presumptions or possible apprehension cannot and should not be made the basis of transferring a case from one court to another.
In the instant case, from the perusal of the impugned order, it is clear that only on mere apprehension and suspicion that the Prescribed Authority/trial court will pass the same order which he has earlier passed on the application for release of premises in question, transfer application under Section 24 has been moved, while dealing the same District Judge, has called comments from the Prescribed Authority/O.P. No. 3 and in response to the same, he submitted that nothing has been said by him, taking into consideration the said facts as well as the petitioner is a tenant in the premises in question and want to lingering the matter one or other pretext with oblique motive and purpose, Learned District Judge rejected the same, so the petitioner is not entitled for any relief in the present case because the apprehension and the imaginary ground taken by the petitioner that after remand by the appellate authority, the prescribed authority would take the same view are baseless, liable to be rejected especially when there is no allegation, aspersion on the integrity of the learned Prescribed Authority who has to decided the matter in respect of release of the premises in accordance with law.
For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any illegality and infirmity in the impugned order under challenge in the present writ petition, hence it is dismissed.
No order as to costs.
Order Date :- 2.11.2011 Ravi/