IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No.645/2024 Reserved on:27th August, 2025 Date of Decision: 30th August, 2025. Atul Sud and Ors. .....Petitioners Versus Arya Pratinidhi Sabha, HP and Anr. ….Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Neeraj Gupta, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Rinki Kashmiri, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. P.S. Goverdhan, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Rakesh Thakur, Advocate. Bipin Chander Negi, Judge By way of the present petition, a challenge has been laid to the impugned order dated 26.09.2024 (Annexure P-6), whereby an application seeking transfer of rent petition, titled Arya Pratinidhi Sabha and Another Versus Rohit Sood and others, No.1-K/2 of 2013, pending before the learned Rent Controller, Kandaghat to any other Rent Controller in District Solan, HP, on the ground of biasness alleged against the Rent Controller Kandaghat, has been dismissed. 2. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order and documents appended along with the present petition. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2 3. The justice system is based on certain well settled principles namely; a) Judges are impartial Arbiters, who uphold the principles of fairness; b) justice should not only be done, but it should be seen to have been done; and c) a fair trial is an imperative of dispensation of justice. 4. Mere apprehensions/allegations that the aforesaid principles of administration of justice have not been adhered to in a given case is not sufficient. The apprehension expressed must be reasonable, genuine and justifiable. Hyper-sensitive or relative convenience of a party or easy availability of legal services or like mini grievances are not sufficient for transferring a case from one Court to another. Something more substantial, more compelling and more imperiling from the point of view of public justice and its attendant environment is required. 5. When an allegation of biasness is made against a Presiding Officer, it becomes the bound duty of the Court to ascertain, as to whether the ground has been substantiated by the litigant or not. Test of real likelihood of bias is whether a reasonable person in 3 possession of relevant information would have thought that bias was likely and whether the adjudicator was likely to be disposed to decide the matter only in a particular way. 6. In the pending lis before the learned Rent Controller, the present petitioners are the tenants and the eviction petition has been filed by the present respondents i.e. landlords. The respondents being body corporates are duly represented through their General Power of Attorney (GPA) and their President, who happens to be the same individual (Sh. Parbodh Chander Sood). 7. One of the petitioners before the Court i.e. Sh. Rohit Sood, had filed a complaint against Sh. Parbodh Chander Sood. The complaint pertained to Section 406 of the IPC. At the stage of consideration of charge, the trial Court i.e. Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kandaghat, who also happens to be the Rent Controller, in the case at hand, had discharged the said Sh. Parbodh Chander Sood. The order dated 20.04.2024 of discharge is appended along with the present petition as Annexure P-8. The same has been 4 assailed before the Court of competent jurisdiction The specific grievance of the present petitioners in the case at hand is that while discharging Sh. Parbodh Chander Sood vide judgment dated 20.04.2024, a reference therein has been made to the present pending rent petitions inter se the parties. Hence, the apprehension of a bias against the Presiding Officer. 8. From a perusal of the judgment dated 20.04.2024, it is evident that numerous reasons were cited for discharging Sh. Parbodh Chander Sood. One of the reasons cited was false implication of Sh. Parbodh Chander Sood in the criminal proceedings under Section 406 of the IPC. In this context, the argument raised by Sh. Parbodh Chander Sood qua the criminal proceedings initiated against him was that the same were a counter-blast to the rent petitions now sought to be transferred. In this context, the Court was of the view that the rent proceedings had been initiated in the year 2013, ever since 2015 the matter was fixed for recording of evidence of the present petitioners. In this backdrop filing of the complaint under Section 406 of the IPC in the year 5 2018 with respect to two cheques dated 2012-13 was seen, as an attempt to falsely implicate Sh. Parbodh Chander Sood. 9. The next grievance raised qua the biasness of the Presiding Officer i.e. learned Rent Controller, in the case at hand, is the expediting of filing of pleadings with respect to applications filed by the present petitioner before the learned Rent Controller. In this context, it has been correctly observed in the impugned order that the eviction petition pending consideration before the learned Rent Controller was filed in the year 2013 (30.10.2013). The matter came up for recording of petitioners’ evidence on 20.08.2015. Ever since then the matter is listed for recording of evidence of the petitioners (tenants). In this context expediting the filing of the pleadings in applications filed for an early disposal of the same cannot be faulted with. 10. Other than the aforesaid, dismissal of an application filed under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC in the pending rent petition inter se the parties by one Sh. Manish Sood i.e. son of the uncle of the petitioners is 6 also being used as a plea to justify the biasness of the Presiding Officer (Rent Controller concerned) against the present petitioners. Seeking transfer on such a plea reflects that the petitioners are over- reacting/being hypersensitive. Such a plea cannot in my considered view qualify the test of a real likelihood of a bias. 11. Keeping in view the well-settled legal parameters stated herein supra (paras 3 to 5) qua considering a case for transfer from one Court to another based on the plea of biasness of the learned Rent Controller concerned and for the reasons mentioned supra, I see no reason to interfere in the impugned judgment dated 26.09.2024 (Annexure P- 7), therefore, the present petition is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. Parties are directed to appear before the learned Rent Controller on 15.09.2025. (Bipin Chander Negi) Judge 30th August, 2025 (Gaurav Rawat)