JUDGMENT
Manmohan Sarin, J.
(1) This is a transfer petition filed under Section 24 C.P.C. by the petitioner/tenant for transfer of Suit No. 422 /93 Along with Contempt Petition No. M-32/94 pending in the Court of Ms. Renu Bhatnagar, Civil Judge, to the Court of Ms. Kamini Lao, where a suit beaming No. 131/95 titled as Smt. Anita Rani v. Veena Bajaj, filed by the respondent for possession is pending.
(2) The fact in brief may be recapitulated :-
(I)The petitioner had filed a suit for permanent injunction seeking to restrain the respondent from dispossessing her without the due process of Law. This was registered as Suit No. 422 //93. A status quo order was passed on 10.11.1993.
(II)The petitioner states that thereafter the electric supply to the premises was also disconnected, constraining her to file a petition under Section 45 of Delhi Rent Control Act.
(III)In the meanwhile, respondent had filed a Suit No. 30/94 now, be renumbered as 131/95 being a suit for possession. The said suit was assigned to the Court of Ms. Renu Bhatnagar, Civil Judge, Delhi. On a transfer application moved by the respondent, the suit was transferred to the Court of Ms. Kamini Lau and now bears Suit No. 131/95.
(3) It is the petitioner’s grievance that while the status quo order continued respondent forcibly took possession which led to the filing of an application under Order 39 Rule 2 A Civil Procedure Code . read with Section 151 Civil Procedure Code . which was registered as Miscellaneous Application No. 32/94 and is pending in the Court of Ms. Renu Bhatnagar, Civil Judge, Delhi. On 10.11.94, the respondent land-lady was directed to restore back the tenanted premises to the petitioner. This was followed by another order dated 21.11.94 by which police aid was also directed to be given to the petitioner for getting possession. Counsel for the respondent points out that a revision petition bearing No. 94/95 against the order dated 21.11.94 was filed. The order dated 21-11-94 was set aside in the revision petition bearing No. 94/95 by this Court.
(4) The net effect is that the respondent has still not restored the possession of the premises to the petitioner. The respondent plea as it appears from the statement recorded before the Civil Judge on 31.10.94 is that since the premises were found unlocked, the respondent took possession of it.
(5) The petitioner in the present petition has prayed that Suit No. 422/93 together with M-32/94 pending in the Court of Ms. Renu Bhatnagar, Civil Judge, Delhi be transferred to the Court of Ms. Kamini Lau, Civil Judge, Delhi to be tried Along with Suit No. 131/95. Counsel for the respondent fairly concedes that she has no objection to this prayer being allowed. It would be expedient and in the interest of Justice to have both suits tried by the same Court. Accordingly Suit No. 422/93 together with M-32/94 titled as Veena Bajaj v.Anita Rani pending in the Court of Ms. Renu Bhatnagar, Civil Judge, are transferred to the Court of Ms. Kamini Lau, Civil Judge, where Suit No. 131 /95 filed by the respondent is pending.
(6) The Trial Court being seized of both the suits would now consider whether a prima facie case for contempt is made out against the respondent and whether the conduct of the respondent has been such so as to impede the course of Justice. In the event, the Trial Court tomes to the conclusion that it is so, then it would decide the contempt petition first and require the respondent to purge herself of the contempt before proceeding with Suit No. 131 /95. The petition stands disposed of with the above directions.
