' MUNIR AHMED CHAUDHARY, J.---This writ petition has been filed under section 44 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act, 1.974, through which the following prayer was solicited.
"In view of the above submission, it is, therefore most respectfully prayed that this writ petition may kindly be accepted and impugned order passed/by the Rent Controller Mirpur dated 31-1-2013 may kindly be set aside while dismissing the application for recovery of rent filed by the petitioner. Any other relief permissible under law may also be granted."
2. Brief facts as stated in the petition are that the petitioner is a tenant of the building owned by the non-petitioner Sabir Hussain in which the petitioner has setup business of restaurant. An agreement was made between the parties. The petitioner has been paying the rent to the owner regularly till 2009 but afterwards, the petitioner could not pay the rent in time. Although, he was bound under the agreement to pay the rent on the 5th of each month. An amount of Rs,4,70,210 was outstanding against the petitioner, so he became defaulter. After hearing the parties, the trial Court ordered the petitioner to deposit the rent from January 2Q12 to February 2013 in the court and to deposit the rent at the rate of Rs,46,585 per month in future on 5th of each month vide order dated 31-1-2013 and fixed the case for framing of issues. The petitioner has challenged the legality, propriety and validity of the order dated 31-1-2013. The petitioner prayed in the manner mentioned above.
3. Respondent No,2 Sabir Hussain/owner of the building submitted parawise comments, stating therein that the petitioner has got no locus standi and not aggrieved person. The petition has been filed with mala fide intention only to prolong the proceedings pending before the Rent Controller.
The matter has not been disposed of finally and sub judice before the Rent Controller. The Rent Controller has passed the impugned order in accordance with the provisions of law. The petitioner is yet a defaulter. The impugned order is based on the facts of the case, so the findings regarding the facts cannot be disturbed through a writ petition. It was prayed to dismiss the writ petition in limine.
4. Preliminary arguments were advanced by the learned counsel for the parties who only repeated their version as taken in the pleadings. After hearing the parties, I have gone through the record minutely. It is an admitted principle of law that the Rent Controller has been given vast powers under the Rent Restriction Ordinance and he is not bound in every case to follow the procedure stipulated in the Code of Civil Procedure. He has been given powers to pass orders after holding such inquiry as he thinks fit. The question to decide the nature and extent of inquiry is purely his discretion and the parties have no right to insist upon passing of order as they desire. This principle has been laid down in the precedent PLD 1983 SC (AJ&K) 204. It has also been held in the said precedent that any order of the Rent Controller cannot be assailed either in second appeal in the High Court or by any other manner including petition under section 115 C.P.C. It has also been held by the apex Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir in Civil Appeal No,29 of 2012 titled Nazir Ahmed and others v. Riaz Ahmed and others vide judgment dated 15-3-2013 that the High Court cannot sit as an appellate Court on the decision of lower Court in constitutional jurisdiction. What is necessary for issuance of writ is that an order impugned before the High Court by way of writ petition should be against the legal provision. The same principle has been reiterated in the precedent 1996 M LD 355 as under:-- "7. At the very outset it may be pointed out that there is a marked distinction between the jurisdiction vested in a civil Court, while exercising its powers as a Court of appeal and the jurisdiction exercised by the High Court in writ jurisdiction. The High Court while exercising the writ jurisdiction cannot sit upon the judgments of subordinate Courts or Local authorities or Tribunals as a Court of appeal. _-Even the illegal orders or judgments passed by the subordinate Courts or Local authorities or Tribunals cannot be set aside by the High Court while exercising its powers in writ jurisdiction...."
' The above-mentioned principle was also laid down in the precedent 2011 SCR 59 as under:-- "Writ jurisdiction of the High Court is regulated by Article 44 of the AJ&K Interim Constitution Act, 1974, which according to its phraseology, at the very outset provides that a writ petition can only be filed if there is no alternate remedy available to an applicant as has been handed down in umpteen cases so far by the superior Courts and leaves no room for the High Court to entertain a writ petition where it appears from the record that the controversy brought before the Courts is one of civil nature, competently to be decided by the civil Court or all within the jurisdiction of a special Court or tribunal with specific backing of some codal provisions."
After going through the above-mentioned principles, it is clear that while exercising the writ jurisdiction the High Court cannot sit upon the judgments of subordinate Courts, local authorities or Tribunals as a Court of appeal. Even the orders passed by such Courts cannot be set aside by the High Court while exercising its writ jurisdiction.
' The nutshell of the above discussion is that the petitioner has got no locus standi to file the instant writ petition. So, the instant writ petition stands dismissed in limine with no order as to the costs. 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.