(1.) THIS petition under Section 28 of the Himachal Pradesh Rent Control Act, 1987 (for short the 'Act') at the behest of the tenants seeks quashing of order passed by the learned Appellate Authority whereby their application for transfer of the case has been rejected.
(2.) IN the application filed for transfer of case before the learned Appellate Authority, it has contended that the petitioners wanted to engage the services of some lawyers at Rohru, but none was ready to take up the case for the reason that the respondent was local person and had great influence in the locality, as he had retired as a District & Sessions Judge. Not only this, before joining the H.P. Judicial Service he had been practicing Advocate at Rohru and therefore, this was the additional ground that none of the lawyers were ready to accept their brief.
(3.) THE learned Appellate Court dismissed the application by holding that the allegations contained therein were vague, general in nature and it was fairly settled that the proceedings in the civil cases could not be transferred on the mere asking of a party. It was further held that since the respondent had retired as a District & Sessions Judge long back, it did not mean that none of the lawyers would be ready to accept his brief.