The learned single Judge before whom the matter came up for hearing on admission seems to have heard the learned companynsel for the petitioner with patience and dealing with all the pleas raised before him directed the revision to be dismissed by a speaking order as, in his opinion, it was number a fit case warranting interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction of High Court.
The appellant then moved an application seeking review recall of the revisional order of the High Court on the ground that at one stage of the litigation between the same parties the learned single Judge, who heard and decided the revision, had appeared in the High Court as companynsel for the landlord respondents and, therefore, he should number have heard the revision petition.
Feeling aggrieved by the revisional order dated 2.12.2003 and the subsequent order dated 8.1.2004 dismissing the review recall petition these two appeals have been filed by special leave.
The respondent filed a revision petition in the High Court under Section 15 5 of East Punjab Rent Restriction Act, 1949.
On 15.4.1996, the respondent initiated proceedings for eviction of the appellant from the suit premises on the ground that the premises were required bona fide to satisfy the requirement of the respondent and his family members.
The learned single Judge dismissed the review petition stating that this fact was number brought to his numberice when he heard the revision and decided the same on merits.
Between the date of decision of that earlier revision and the date of hearing in the present revision petition a long period of more than eight years had elapsed.
The review petition was filed by changing the companynsel.
However, the appellant was allowed six months time for vacating the premises.
The suit premises are situated in Jalandhar city.
It is number the case of the appellant that the learned Judge, whilst at the Bar had at any time appeared for the respondent at the trial or was personally known to him.
An appeal preferred by the respondent came to be dismissed by the Appellate Authority.
On 24.5.2000, the Rent Controller directed the appellant to be evicted.
The respondent is the landlord and appellant is the tenant.
