1. Respondent in S.C.Nos.567/2013 and 568/2013 has filed these petitions seeking for transfer of the said proceedings pending on the file of XXI ACMM and XXIII ASCJ, Bengaluru to any other court.

2. Facts in brief leading to filing of these petitions are as under:

Respondent herein has filed two suits for ejectment in S.C.No.567/2013 and 568/2013 against the defendants/petitioners herein. On service of suit summons, petitioners herein appeared and have filed their respective written statement denying the averments made in the plaint and also disputing the relationship of landlord and tenant. These petitions have been filed contending inter alia that Presiding Officer is highly prejudiced against the petitioners/defendants, and as such they have sought for transfer of Small Causes suits to any other court.

3. I have heard the arguments of Sri Manish Sanghvi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/defendants and Sri K.P.Thrimurthy, appearing for respondent/plaintiff.

4. It is the contention of Mr.Sanghvi/Manish, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner that an application for amendment of the written statement was filed/came to be allowed on 10.12.2015 on cost of Rs.1,000/- and the matter was posted for respondent’s evidence on 07.01.2016 and 18.01.2016. He submits when the matter was taken up on 29.01.2016, an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC to reject the plaint came to be filed by defendant which was dismissed on 23.02.2016, imposing a cost of Rs.5,000/- and trial Court listed the matter on 04.03.2016 for arguments of defendants. Though, as per order sheet dated 07.01.2016 and 18.01.2016 it ought to have been posted for crossexamination of PW1. Hence, it is contended that in haste, learned Presiding Officer has posted the case for arguments on behalf of the defendants and subsequently an application came to be filed for recall of PW1, which was allowed on a cost of Rs.4,500/-, for which petitioner filed an application under Section 151 of CPC to reduce the cost and also apprehending that he will not get fair trial and impartial justice at the hands of the said court a memo was filed.

5. It is further contended that plaintiff i.e., respondent herein has claimed in the market that he would get an order of eviction at the hands of the petitioner/defendants and has openly declared that he will get favourable orders even without evidence or crossexamination of defendants and as such, defendants were shocked and surprised when the case was posted for judgment on 30.10.2017, that too, without hearing the arguments or permitting the petitioner to crossexamine the plaintiff.

6. It is the further allegation of the defendant that whenever applications are filed by the plaintiff, learned Presiding Officer has allowed the same on payment of meager costs of Rs.150/and whenever defendant filed an application, it came to allowed on cost of Rs.5,000/and this would only indicate that learned Presiding Officer was prejudiced. He would also submit that plaintiff had filed three applications for production of the documents under Order 7 Rule 14(3), under Section 151 of CPC and under Order 18 Rule 17, which came to be allowed on payment of cost of Rs.300/each, as per order dated 15.09.2017 and a memo filed on 16.09.2017 by the defendant stating thereunder that defendant intends to file a revision petition before the High Court and yet Presiding officer permitted the plaintiff to adduce evidence and mark the documents and thereafter without permitting the petitioner to crossexamine PW1, has posted the matter for arguments on 04.10.2017, on which date, learned advocates were on strike and even without hearing the arguments on main, had posted the matter for judgment on 30.10.2017. Hence, expressing apprehension, which according to the petitioner is reasonable that he will not get a fair, natural, impartial and unbiased justice at the hands of the XXIII Additional Small Causes Judge, Bengaluru and the learned Judge was having full s