Lokeshwar Singh Panta, J.: Both these Civil Revision Petitions can be conveniently disposed of by this common order as the facts involved therein are same and similar and the parties’ arc also common.

2. Civil Revision No. 171 of 1998 has been filed by Shri Bela Singh petitioner - tenant under Section 24(5) read with Section 28(2) of H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to Rent Control Act) against three separate orders dated 29.5.1998, 2.6.1998 and tf.6.1908 passed by Rent Controller (II), Nahan, District Sirmour in Case No.10/6 of 1998 seeking the quashing of the said orders whereby his applications were dismissed.

3. Civil Revision No.209 of 1998 filed by the petitioner - tenant under Section 28(2) of the Rent Control Act is against the order dated 23.6.1998 passed in Civil Misc. Application Nd.73-N/5 of 1998 by Appellate Authority i (II), Nahan dismissing his application for transfer of the proceedings from Rent Controller at Nahan or Paonta Sahib.

4. This case has a chequred history. Shri Bela Singh petitioner is a tenant of Smt. Neena Kaushik respondent in the demised premises bearing M.C. House No. 2167, Ward No.3 near Chaughan, Nahan (Now -re-numbered as house No.812 Ward No.4 near Chaughan, Nahan). Smt. Neena Kaushik respondent - landlady filed eviction Petition No. 12/4 of 1975 before the Rent Controller, Nahan for eviction of petitioner -tenant. The said petition was allowed by Rent Controller, vide his order dated 30.11.1978. Against this order, petitioner -tenant preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority, Solan and Sirmour Districts which came to be dismissed on 31.7.1984. Feeling aggrieved and dis-satisfied the petitioner-tenant carried the matter to this Court Through Civil Revision Petition No. 148 of 1984 which too came to be dismissed on 23.7.1996. The petitioner -tenant was still not satisfied and filed SLP(C) No.21112/96 in the Supreme Court and his Special Leave Petition was also dismissed on 5.12.1997.

5. The respondent -landlady filed Execution Petition No.5/2 of 1996 on 24.9.1996 before the Rent Controller (II), Nahan. During the pendency of the execution proceedings, petitioner - tenant on 16.3.1998 moved Objection Petition No. 1/11 of 1998 under Section 47 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure alleging interalia that compromise between the parties had taken place on 8.3.1998, whereby the respondent -landlady agreed to keep the petitioner -tenant as her tenant in the demissed premises on monthly rent of Rs. 100/- instead of Rs. 30/-. It was further alleged that the petitioner-tenant will continue to occupy the premises as a tenant and he will not be evicted. As per the compromise, the petitioner -tenant paid to the respondent landlady all the arrears of rent upto 31st March, 1998 amounting to Rs. 8,500/- on 8.3.1998. He further alleged that it was assured by the respondent -landlady mat she will get her execution -petition on 17.3.1998. Respondent - landlady filed reply on 6.4.1998 to the objection petition and denied the execution of any such compromise having been entered into between the parties. She alleged that the alleged compromise was a forged and fabricated document. On the same day. i.e. 16.3.1998, application No.10/6 of 1998 was moved by the petitioner - tenant under Order 21 Rule 2 read with Section 151 C.P.C., on similar grounds mat he took in the objection petition with a prayer to issue notice to the respondent landlady to show .cause why the said compromise/adjustment should not be certified. Pursuant to notice of this application, the respondent - landlady appeared in the Court on 23.3.1998. She was confronted with the said document which she categorically denied having executed. She also denied her signature on the said compromise dated 8.3.1998. Her statement was recorded on oath by the Rent Controller on the same day. She asserted that the alleged agreement -cum-receipt was nothing but forged and fabricated document. She said that she n