' ABDUL AZIZ KUNDI, J.---Through this petition, Syed Akbar Shah, who is the petitioner in the Ejectment Petition, pending before the Rent Controller, has questioned the order dated 5-11-2009, passed by Additional District Judge-XIII, Peshawar, who while accepting the appeal filed by respondent No,1, set aside the order dated 9-7-2009, passed by Rent Controller, Peshawar, declining the request of the respondent for summoning the witness.
2. Fazal-ur-Rehman, respondent No,1, who is respondent in the Ejectment Petition, pending before the Rent Controller, ever since July, 2005, requested the Rent Controller, through his application dated 13-6-2009, for summoning one Shamshad Khan, as a witness on his behalf. This application was contested by the petitioner and ultimately the request made by the respondent was declined by the Rent Controller, vide order dated 9-7-2009.
3. F az al-ur-Rehman , respondent, feeling aggrieved, assailed the said order before District Judge, Peshawar, through his Rent Appeal No,5/RA of 2009, which came up before Additional District Judge- X III , Peshawar, who without attending to the question of maintainability of the appeal before him, proceeded to accept the same and directed the trial Court to record the statement of marginal witness, as prayed for by the respondent in his application.
4. This order, passed by the appellate Court, has been questioned through the instant writ petition.
' Arguments heard.
5. Section 15 of the Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, as was substituted by N.-W.F.F.
(Amendment) Ordinance No, IX of 1979, reads as under:- "15. Appeal.---(1) Any party aggrieved by an order made by the Controller under section 4, section 10, section 12 or section 13 may, within thirty days of the date of such order, prefer an appeal in writing to the District Judge having jurisdiction over the area where the building or rented land in relation to which the order is passed, is situated: ' Provided that no appeal shall lie against an order made by a Controller under subsection (6) of Section 13 determining approximately the amount of rent due or the rate of rent and directing the tenant to deposit all the rent due: ' Provided further that no appeal shall lie from an interlocutory order passed by the Controller.
(2) On such appeal being preferred the District Judge may hear it himself or refer it for disposal to an Additional District Judge having jurisdiction over the area where the building or the rented land, in relation to which the order is passed, is situated.
(3) The District Judge may recall an appeal made over by him to an Additional District Judge and either hear it himself or refer it for disposal to another Additional District Judge having jurisdiction as provided in subsection (2).
(4) On such appeal being preferred, the appellate authority may stay the operation of the order appealed against.
(5) The appellate authority admitting an appeal for hearing shall have same powers to direct the tenant to deposit the rent as are vested in the Controller under this Ordinance, if the tenant makes default in compliance with such an order, then, if he is the appellant, his appeal shall be dismissed summarily and, if he is the respondent, defence shall be struck off.
(6) The appellate authority shall decide the appeal after sending for the record of the case from the Controller and after giving the parties an opportunity of being heard and, if necessary, after making such further inquiry as it thinks fit, either personally or through the Controller.
(7) The order of the Controller, "subject to the result of appeal, if any, shall be final and shall not be called in question in any Court including the High Court, by suit, appeal or otherwise".
6. When the attention of the learned counsel for respondent No,1 was drawn towards the second proviso under section 15 subsection (1) and called upon to explain as to how his appeal before the District Judge was competent, learned counsel tried to demonstrate that the order of the trial Court was not interlocutory in nature.
7. We are afraid, the contention of the learned counsel is without any foundation. There can be hardly any two opinions about the order of the trial Court to be not interlocutory in nature, which was not open I to challenge through an appeal.
8. The legislature has, in its wisdom. Decided that the interlocutory orders in the rent matters should not be subjected to appeals and rightly so, because the same A would result into unnecessary delay in the disposal of rent matters, which require early disposal.
9. We had called for the explanation of the learned Additional District JudgeXIII, Peshawar, who had submitted his explanation stating that keeping in view the guidelines given by superior Courts for disposal of cases on merits, he had proceeded to dispose of the appeal as a revision.
10. This again was an illegality, as admittedly orders passed under the Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, are not open to challenge through revision petitions, more particularly when appeal against that order was specifically barred.
' In this view of the matter, we declare the order dated 5-112009, passed by Additional District Judge-XIII, Peshawar, to be without lawful authority and jurisdiction and accordingly struck down A the same. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.