' Having leased out to the respondent the suit premises described- as "ground floor including two rooms and verandah of house bearing No,B/76 Commercial Centre, Satellite Town, Rawalpindi" for the setting up of its banking business (Ladies Branch) initially for a period of 8 yeas, undeterminable by efflux of time, with an option to the latter for successive renewals of 5 years period at a monthly rental of Rs,3500 inclusive of all taxes, levies, dues and cesses present and future whereunder advance rent of Rs,1,68,000 embracing a period of 4 years was, duly paid and acknowledged, out of which 50% of the monthly rent was to be adjusted while the balance 50% of the monthly lease rental was to be paid by the respondent periodically, explicitly waiving off all statutory and other rights of ejectment and covenanting that ejectment proceedings against the respondent would be ventured upon solely in the event of unauthorised subletting and default in the payment of two consecutive months rental despite service of notice through registered post acknowledgment due both at the demised premises as well as the respondent's head office, demanding the stipulated payment within a month from the delivery thereof; petitioner without adhering to the condition precedent vide Ejectment Petition No,226 of 1990 on 25-9-1990 sought the respondent's ejectment from the suit premises alleging default in the payment of rent since June, 1990 approaching the Court of Mr. Shaukat All Sajid, Rent Controller, Rawalpindi wherein process was issued to the respondent for 4-10-1990 when repetition had to be ordered for 20th of that very month for non-reporting, in response whereto the respondent's counsel putting in his power of attorney joined the proceedings, was furnished copy of the application and the case was adjourned to 13-11-1990 for filing the reply wherein adjournment was availed of for preparing the same which was submitted on 22-11-1990 inter alia objecting to its maintainability on the ground that as on date a sum of Rs,1,38,250 was still lying with the petitioner as advance rent; additionally an application seeking rejection of the ejectment application was also moved which was dismissed on 20-12-1990 being surplus and taken care of in the solitary issue viz. "whether the respondent has committed wilful default and if so, to what extent? OPP"
3. Whereupon, though initially the case was adjourned for recording of petitioner's evidence, but subsequently substituting the same with a direction to the respondent to arrange personal appearance of an official duly vested with the powers to rectify and amend the lease deed on 2-1- 1991.
4. Pursuant whereto an Assistant Vice-President of the respondent tendered appearance, but on account of the Presiding Officer's pre-occupation with election assignment, case was adjourned to 7-1-1991 with the specific stipulation envisaged in order dated 2-12-1990 which exercise had to be repeated for 14-1-1991, then for 14-1-1991 Court being on leave, then for 19-1-1991 due to election preoccupation, then for 26-1-1991 due to leave of the Presiding Officer, then for 2-2-1991 and 11-2- 1991 for the same reason and with the same direction noticing presence of the parties' counsel on each date of hearing. On which date the trial Court observing vagueness of the reply ordered filing of replication on 1-4-1991, which was carried out and it appears that the case was adjourned to 11- 5-1991 for announcement of the order contemplated by section 13(6) of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, instead it was taken up on 11-4-1991 and recording the respondent's absence on third call at 12-00 noon, noticing it to be Thursday, ordered ex parte proceedings and set down the case for recording of ex parte evidence on 27-4-1991, which concluded with the solo examination of the petitioner's general attorney and furnishing of his instrument whereafter the case was adjourned to the next day i.e, 28-4-1991, when eventually, decreeing the petitioner's application, the respondent's ejectment was ordered directing handing over vacant possession of the suit premises unto the former within 15 days together with the 50% of the arrears of rent since June 1990, failing which possession was to be acquired through execution proceedings.
5. Accordingly the execution petition was resorted to on 16-5-1991, notice whereof was issued to the respondent for 21-5-1991 qua which the Processes server on the preceding day i.e, 20-5-1991 submitted report dated 19-5-1991 divulging refusal of the respondent's branch manager to accept notice; consequent whereupon warrant of possession was issued on 21-5-1991. Subsequent whereto, upon the Bailiff's reporting of resistance on 22-5-1991, execution through police intervention was applied for, which was allowed and partly implemented viz. The suit premises upon removal of the movables and entrustment thereof to the Superdar, were placed under lock and key by the bailiff with built in iron safe inside.
6. Feeling aggrieved thereby on 22-5-1991, the respondent preferred Civil Appeal No,212, primarily grudging clandestine ex parte proceedings, together with an application praying for suspension of the execution proceedings as an interlocutory measure, which was allowed by the learned District Judge, Rawalpindi, observing the following in his own handwriting:-- "Present: counsel for the appellant. Proceedings before the Rent Controller are marred by misconduct of grave character as is averred. In the circumstances, I dispense with the necessity of the certified copy of the impugned order and suspend its operation with immediate effect on admitting the appeal to regular hearing. Rent Controller shall furnish a reply to the allegations contained in the memorandum of appeal by tomorrow."
7. On the other hand, petitioner applied to the Rent Controller on 23-5-1991 for appointment of a local commissioner for taking out necessary proceedings for removal of the built in iron safe from the suit premises, which he returned for presentation to the learned District Judge, seized of the appeal; whereupon local commission was appointed with a direction to visit the spot forthwith for reporting factual nature of the possession and the removal of articles.
' Meanwhile, the respondent complaining that the injunctive interim order is being frustrated, prayed for unlocking of the premises containing customs' lockers, cash, securities and other valuables; wherein petitioner's general attorney Sardar Shaukat Hayat, Advocate was summoned the same day to explain his point of view.
' Subsequent to the submissions of local commissioner's report the matter was taken up on 26-5- 1991, and the appeal was set down for final hearing on 27-5-1991 and has been partly heard.
8. Transfer whereof presently is being sought urging that the learned District Judge has acted in a partisan manner, illustrating the following: ' Admitting the appeal to hearing late in the evening; had no material before him for passing the stricture against the Rent Controller; ordered status quo ante; appointed local commission on petitioner's application for inquisitorial role beyond its scope; wrote each order in his own hand; fixed the main appeal for fall hearing within a couple of days time; looked into some of the respondent's documents which did not form part of the record; declined petitioner's request of remanding the case to the trial Court for inquiring into the respondent's alleged accelerated hearing after framing of the issue and recording of evidence, and lastly, though, admittedly, the trial Court, failed to discharge the mandatory statutory obligations under section 13(6) of the Ordinance ibid contemplating direction for payment of arrears as well as future rent before framing of the issues, the appellate Court equally in not directing the same.
9. Having minutely perused the record and heard the arguments canvassed at the bar I am of the opinion that the trial Court's proceedings do not represent normalcy of events viz. Acceleration of the date of hearing announced within the presence of the parties; overenthusiastic summoning of the bana' officials tending to manifest intendment of securing rectification of the lease deed; granting of adjournments with reiteration thereof on each successive date of hearing by the Reader while the Court was not in session and disposal of the execution petition with excessive zeal, in view whereof, non-joining of the Bank's counsel on the D-day culminating into ex parte order does not appeal to reason which are amenable to too obvious connotations warranting thorough probe while the mischief generated therefrom merited emergent handling for effective administration of justice, wherein the learned District Judge righlty intervened. The petition appears to have been instituted for extraneous consideration with a view to perpetuating the illicit venture and is accordingly hereby dismissed in limine.