1. ' GHULAM MUSTAFA MUGHAL, C.J.--- Through this writ petition filed under section 44 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act, 1974, orders passed by the official respondents on 19-5-2012 and 11-7-2012 have been challenged for having been passed without lawful authority.
2. ' Precise facts forming background of the captioned writ petition are that respondent No,1, herein rented his shop to petitioner, herein in the year 2009. Later on, as per stand of the petitioner, herein, an agreement was executed between the parties for a period of 6 years, commencing from 12-11- 2011 to 12-11-2017 and rent was fixed as Rs,5000/- per month. After 6 months of the execution of the agreement, non-petitioner No,1, herein asked the petitioner to vacate his shop. Petitioner, herein, filed an application before the Rent Controller, Muzaffarabad on 16-4-2012 for determination of fair rent. Non-petitioner No,1, herein also filed an application for ejectment/eviction of the petitioner from his shop on 24-4-2012. Both the applications were consolidated and non-petitioner No,1 herein was asked to lead his evidence. It is alleged that original rent deed was in possession of the petitioner, herein and in view of the, decision of Jirga, the same was handed over to non-petitioner No,1 on the ground that he will withdraw from the case. The petitioner handed over the agreement to the non-petitioner on 21-5-2012, however, he denied to withdraw from the case. It is stated that the petitioner filed an application on 19-5-2012 for production of original rent-deed/Iqrarnama, which was, allegedly, in possession of the non-petitioner No,1 herein but the learned Rent Controller rejected the same without hearing and receiving objections from the other side, on the same day.
3. The order was challenged before the District Judge/ Appellate Authority through a revision petition on 23-6-2012 but the same was dismissed by him vide judgment dated 11-7-2012. It is alleged that both the orders have been passed without lawful authority and against the norms of justice because right of hearing and producing evidence is a fundamental right of the petitioner, which has been denied by the respondents by arbitrary exercise of powers.
4. ' Mr. Sajjad Ahmed Khan, the learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, argued that original agreement/Iqrarnama was handed over to Muhammad Shafiq, (owner of the shop), in a Jirga, who was also marginal witness of the agreement, hence, he requested to the learned Rent Controller to ask the non-petitioner No,1, herein to produce the original document, which was handed over to him, so that its contents could be put to him and the other witnesses. He submitted that the Rent Controller, without receiving objections from the other side, rejected the application through arbitrary exercise of powers, which tantamounts to denial of justice.
5. ' Conversely, Mr. Tahir Aziz Khan, the learned counsel for the respondents contended that it was stated by the petitioner in his application before the Rent Controller that the original document is not available with him because the same is lost. Subsequently, he concocted a forged document in order to defend his false claim, therefore, the application was malicious and the learned Rent Controller is vested with the summary jurisdiction to reject any application, which has an effect of delaying the process of justice and has been made with ulterior motive.
6. ' I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case.
7. I am of the view that without attending the controversy agitated IA by the learned counsel for the parties through their arguments, this petition is liable to be dismissed for the reason that the order under challenge has been passed by the District Judge/Appellate Authority on a revision petition-.
8. In Azad Jammu and Kashmir, the revisional jurisdiction was initially, vested in the High Court, however, ,due to an amendment made in 1972 (which has been adopted in the AJ&K), the District Judge is also vested with the same powers, which authorise him to examine the orders passed by the subordinate Courts, in which, no appeal lies. The question which falls for determination is as to whether, the Rent Controller is a Court; subordinate to the District Judge/ IA Appellate Authority, designated under the Rent Act. The point received attention of the, apex Court of AJ&K in a case titled Shaikh Khalid Mahmood v. Malick Muhammad Irfan PLD 1983 SC (AJ&K) 204. At page 206 of the report it was observed as under:--- "7. It would appear that under subsection (7) of section 18, the order of the Controller subject to the result of an appeal, if any, is final and cannot be assailed in any Court of law including the High Court by way of a suit, appeal or otherwise. Subsection (7) thus creates a total bar for appeal, revisions etc. To the High Court. The word 'otherwise', we may say, is comprehensive enough to include the bar to challenge the order of the District Judge by way of a revision even. It appears that to have speedy remedy the Legislature aims that the order passed by the District Judge though as Presiding Officer of principal Court in the District should attain finality and such order should not be called in question either in second appeal in the High Court or by any other manner including petition under section 115, C.P.C. There seems to be a lot of wisdom behind it. The Legislature very rightly intended to save the landlords and tenants from all possible harassment which they have to face for the lengthy and protracted litigation to get their grievance redressed within a reasonable time. Our considered view is that the question now without any ambiguity is to be answered that a revision petition to assail the order of District Judge is incompetent. So was held in `Zahurul Hasan v. Mst. Raqqia Begum and 4 others, (PLD 1981 SC 112). In that case it has been observed that the order of the Rent Controller subject to the result of appeal, if any, is final and not questionable in any Court of law, including the High Court, by suit, appeal or revision."
9. ' Again in para 10 of the report, it was observed as follows:--- "10. Let us now examine the point from another angle. Assuming that the Special Court can be treated as a Court subordinate to the High Court, it would hardly advance the case of the appellant. The Ordinance is a special law. Section 4 of the C.P.C. Provides that in the absence of any specific provision to the contrary nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or otherwise affect any special or local law now in force or by special jurisdiction and sections 11 and 12 of the Ordinance preclude the High Court from exercising its revisional jurisdiction qua the orders of the Special Court."
10. Final conclusion was given by the apex Court in para 14 of the report, which reads as under:-- "14. The irresistible conclusion, therefore, that the order passed by the District Judge in such matters even as Presiding Officer of the Principal Court in the District cannot be called in question either in second appeal in the High Court or by any other manner including the remedy under section 115 C.P.C, though it is conceded that the exclusion of the jurisdiction, as contended by Mr. Manzoor-ul- Hassan Gillani, shall not be inferred but in the present case the law has expressly taken away the jurisdiction of the High Court by way of appeal or otherwise from calling in question the order passed by the District Judge as appellate authority in rent cases."
11. In view of the above, revision petition filed before the leained District Judge, by the petitioner herein, was not competent, hence, the order passed by him was without jurisdiction. The .Order passed by the Rent Controller dated 19-5-2012 has attained finality and that cannot be called in question in writ jurisdiction because the same is of interim nature and in the circumstances of the instant case, the learned Senior Civil Judge/Rent Controller has rightly declined to summon the original document.
12. ' In view of what has been discussed above, finding no force in this petition the same is hereby dismissed and the learned Senior Civil Judge/Rent Controller, Muzaffarabad. Is directed to dispose of the applications within a period of 60 days.