Hon’ble Rakesh Tiwari, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

2. Release application No. 5 of 1999; Somaru Ram v. Deena Nath Upadhyaya and others, moved by the respondents on 2.4.1999 was rejected on 11.3.2004 in default for non appearance of the landlord. Thereafter, recall application was moved which was allowed on 2.2.2007 and the case was restored to its original number. Subsequently, the case was transferred on 18.1.2010 to the Court of IVth Civil Judge (Senior Division), Varanasi.

3. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the Presiding Officer namely IVth Civil Judge (Senior Division), Varanasi took extraordinary interest in disposal of the P.A. Case No. 5 of 1999 for the reason that the residence of the Presiding Officer said to be at Allahabad, located next to the residence of the son of the landlord namely Dinesh Kumar Verma who is said to be studying in Agriculture Institute at Allahabad; that the applicant was surprised to over-hear Dinesh Kumar Verma talking to his real brother inside his shop that he would manage to get an order in his favour in the case; that this fact is affirmed by the conduct of the Presiding Officer who has been fixing dates at long interval in other cases, but is fixing in his P.A. Case No. 5 of 1999 short date.

4. In the aforesaid circumstances, the petitioners moved transfer application under Section 3 (e) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 which was rejected by the District Judge, Varanasi on 21.8.2010 holding that the case is fixed for hearing on 18.5.2010 and also holding that Dinesh Kumar Verma son of Raj Kumar Verma has no relation with the Presiding Officer.

5. The District Judge considered the cases cited by the applicant as under: Kulvinder Kaur alias Kul Vinder Gurucharan Singh v. Kandi Fendrum Education Trust and others, 2008 (1) ARC 642 SC; Pushpa Devi Saraf and others v. Jai Narain Parasharm Puriya and others, AIR 1992 SC 1133 and Nahar Industrial Enterprises Ltd. v. Hang Kang & Sanghai Banking Corporation, (2009) 8 SCC 646.

6. After considering the ratio laid down in the aforesaid cases, the District Judge found that there is no basis for such allegation made by the applicant for transferring the case and that the Court before whom transfer application is made should consider all the facts and circumstances before accepting such application. The District Judge further held that there is no basis to allow the transfer application.

7. It appears from the record that according to the Prescribed Authority the scheme of the Act provides such cases are to be decided within the time prescribed in various provisions of the Act and in view of this short dates are fixed in rent cases to comply with the provisions of the Act in letter and spirit and this effort is being made to achieve the aims and object of the Act. It is this order which is under challenge in the present writ petition.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order passed by the District Judge, Varanasi impugned in the present writ petition is without jurisdiction as transfer application No. 125 of 2010 could not have been entertained by him.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon paragraph 10 of the case in P.K. Ghosh, IAS and another v. J.G. Rajput, (1995) 6 SCC 744.

Paragraph 10 of the aforesaid judgment is quoted as under:

“A basic postulate of the rule of law is that “justice should not only be done but it must also be seen to be done”. If there be a basis which cannot be treated as unreasonable for a litigant to expect that his matter should not be heard by a particular Judge and there is no compelling necessity, such as the absence of an alternative, it is appropriate that the learned Judge should rescue himself from the Bench hearing that matter. This step is required to be taken by the learned Judge not because he is likely to be influenced in any manner in doing justice in the cause, but because his hearing the matter is li