T.A.No. 444 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH T.A.No. 444 of 2011 Date of decision 18.11.2011 Bimla Devi Applicant versus Smt. Kiran Datta Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr. Atul Gaur, Amicus Curiae, for the applicant Mr. R. M. Singh, Advocate for the respondent .... JITENDRA CHAUHAN.J This application was presented in the Court by the applicant in person on 12.8.2011 and was treated as a transfer petition under section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The applicant, present in person, prayed that the rent petition titled “ Kiran Datta vs. Bimla Devi” filed under sections 13(2) (i), (3) (a) (iii) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, (for short the 'Act') pending in the court of ACJ (S.D.) Balachaur be transferred to any other District under the jurisdiction of this Court. On 16.8.2011, Mr. Atul Gaur, Advocate was appointed as Amicus Curiae in this case. As per the allegations in the application, Bimla Devi has been residing in the house of Smt. Kiran Datta for the last more than 40 years. The above titled rent petition for ejectment of the respondent-applicant is T.A.No. 444 of 2011 2 pending in the Court of ACJ (S.D) Balachaur, District S.B.S. Nagar. In the above-said rent petition, Kiran Datta is represented by Mr.T.R.Datta, Advocate. As per the allegations, Mr. T.R.Datta-Advocate, appearing on behalf of the Smt. Kiran Datta is the brother-in-law of Smt. Kiran Datta. He is openly stating that the rent petition will be decided in favour of her sister-in-law (Bhabhi) within a short span of time. Further allegations are that Kulbhushan Datta has been appointed as power-of-attorney of Smt. Kiran Datta. T.R.Datta is the son of Kulbhushan Datta. Kulbhushan Datta is working as a deed-writer in the court complex. The above-said persons are famous in the locality for their quarrelsome nature and known as property grabbers. They also have influence over the members of the Bar. The applicant Bimla Devi apprehends that she will not get justice in the aforesaid petition due to the involvement of the above persons. Reply to the application was filed, which is taken on record. It was pleaded that the applicant Bimla Devi has not approached the Court with clean hands. It was admitted that the landlady filed the ejectment petition through Sh.T.R.Datta, Advocate. The petition on behalf of the tenant-applicant was contested by Shri V.K.Bali, Advocate. Both the parties have led their evidence. The case is at the fag end and the applicant is playing tactics to delay the judicial proceedings. She has filed the application for transfer of the case on frivolous allegations without any material on record. The copies of zimni orders of the above-titled rent petition were called for. A perusal of the same shows that the Ld. Trial court is passing orders on day-to-days basis and as per the provisions of the law. A random look at zimni order dated 15.6.2010 shows that case was fixed for T.A.No. 444 of 2011 3 written statement but neither written statement was filed nor respondent has come present. Case was called many times. The respondent was proceeded against ex-parte. On the next date i.e 16.7.2010, respondent appeared and filed application for setting aside the ex-parte order, which prayer was granted. Written statement was filed on 2.8.2010. Rejoinder was filed on 12.8.2010 and case was fixed for ADR purposes for 17.8.2010. A further perusal of order dated 17.9.2010 shows that the Court has appointed Local Commissioner on the request of the petitioner on the ground that the property in dispute is unfit and unsafe for human habitation on which ground, eviction of the respondent is sought for. On the other hand, the reply of the respondent was that the disputed property is not in dilapidated condition and she claimed ownership of the property. Report of the Local commissioner was filed and respondent was given time to file objection. In this manner, the case was heard on a day-to-day basis after giving opportunities to the respondent at every stage to defend her case. There seems to be nothing unusual in conducting the trial of the suit, as alleged by the applicant. From the above, it is clear that the applicant-tenant is trying to delay the proceedings of the rent petition by filing frivolous application for the transfer of the same. The apprehension of the applicant that the relatives of the landlady are members of the Bar and they are interfering in the administration of justice, does not seems to be convincing. The counsel engaged by the tenant-Bimla Devi is stated to be a reputed and senior member of the Bar and very well versed with the court proceedings. Merely because a relative of the litigant is a practicing Advocate would not constitute a valid ground for transfer of a case. The suit is at the fag end T.A.No. 444 of 2011 4 and is likely to be concluded. The application appears to have been filed to prolong the trial by taking malicious and vexatious grounds. The applicant has not approached this Court with clean hands and thus is not entitled to any relief. The sanctity of administration of justice is required to be maintained particularly by the members of the Bar and they are not expected to weaken the pious and novel system of justice. The observations made above, however, will not affect the merits of the case before the trial court. No ground for interference is made out. The transfer application is dismissed. (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) JUDGE 18.11.2011 MS