' CH. MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM ZIA, J. --- This appeal by leave of the Court is directed against the judgment of the High Court dated 6.7.2013 whereby writ petition filed by the appellant has been dismissed in limine.
2. Brief facts giving rise to instant appeal as narrated are that the appellant being tenant of a shop, filed an application for fixation of fair rent before Rent Controller, Mirpur on 17.12.2008, whereas respondent No, 1 being owner of shop filed an application on 9.12.2009 for ejectment of the appellant. Both the parties contested the case by filing objections. The Rent Controller, after hearing the parties, vide order dated 30.12.2011 accepted the application for ejectment filed by the owner, respondent No, 1 and dismissed the application for fixation of fair rent filed by the appellant.
The appellant, feeling aggrieved, filed an appeal to assail the order of Rent Controller in the Court of District Judge, Mirpur which was dismissed vide order dated 30.10.2012. The appellant challenged the orders of both the Courts below through a writ petition before the High Court on numerous grounds. The appellant averred in the writ petition that the order passed by District Judge is legally not maintainable as it has failed to consider the oral and documentary evidence placed on record.
It is also alleged in the writ petition that the appellant runs business in the said shop and has no alternate source of income whereas both the Courts below have failed to consider this important aspect of the matter. He is paying monthly rent. The respondents submitted para-wise comments with the prayer that the petition is hit by the doctrine of laches. They also raised many other objections. The learned High Court, after necessary proceedings dismissed the writ petition in limine through the impugned judgment, hence, this appeal.
3. Syed Nishat Kazmi, Advocate, the learned counsel for the appellant, argued the case at some length. He also attempted to discuss merits of the case, however, finally while summarizing his arguments relating to pivotal point of laches raised in this case, submitted that there is no limitation fixed by law for filing writ petition and in many cases the Courts have entertained writ petitions after a considerable delay. Whereas in the instant case, the appellant, after obtaining the requisite certified copies of the documents filed writ petition and there was also an application for condonation of delay. He submitted that in the application for condonation of delay, sufficient reason have been stated that but unfortunately, the learned Single Judge, High Court has not properly appreciated this fact. Thus, according to his version, the impugned judgment is not sustainable. He submitted that while accepting this appeal and setting aside the impugned order of dismissal of writ petition, the case be remanded to the High Court for disposal under law.
4. Conversely, Mr. Farooq Minhas, Advocate, the learned counsel for respondents strongly opposed the appeal on the ground that the subject-matter of this appeal relates to rented property regarding which a special law known as the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Rent Restriction Act, 1986 is applicable. According to the spirit of special law, the rent matter has to be expeditiously disposed of but unfortunately in this case the parties are facing litigation since last more than 5 years which on the face of it is violation of law. He further submitted that the arguments advanced on behalf of the appellant are without any substance. The Appellate Court passed the order in presence of the appellants on 30.10.2012. The appellant is so negligent that he approached the Court for obtaining certified copies of the documents after passage of more than 3 months' period. Despite delivery of certified copies, he further consumed more than a month's period to approach the Court. He further submitted that the principle of laches has to be appreciated with reference to the nature of subject-matter, rights and interests of the parties and the spirit of law dealing with the subject- matter. He finally submitted that the appeal has no substance and the same is liable to be dismissed with costs.
5. We have paid our utmost attention to the respective arguments advanced at bar by the counsel for the parties. As leave had only been granted on the sole point that whether the principle of laches is attracted in this case especially when the writ petition has been filed after a period of 37 days from the date of obtaining certified copy of the impugned judgment. A perusal of record reveals that the judgment was announced in presence of counsel for the parties on 30th October, 2012. The appellant filed first application for obtaining certified copy of the judgment passed by the appellate authority on 6th February, 2013, almost after more than three months' period from the date of announcement of the judgment; certified copy was prepared on the same date and on depositing the copying fee, it was issued on 8th February, 2013. He applied for certified copy of the judgment of the Rent Controller and application/objection filed before the Rent Controller on 13th February, 2013, the copies of which were also prepared on the same date and were delivered after depositing the copying fee on 16th February, 2013. He applied for certified copy of the grounds of appeal filed before the Appellate Authority on 7th March, 2013, the copy of which was prepared on 8th March, 2013 and delivered on depositing the requisite fee on 14th March, 2013. Same like, he applied for certified copy of the statements of witnesses on 2nd March, 2013, which were prepared and delivered on 4th March, 2013. He filed writ petition on 16th March, 2013. Thus, the conduct of the appellant shows that firstly he has not even bothered to obtain the requisite certified copy within reasonable time rather he applied for after passage of almost more than 3 months' time.
Thereafter, he also took more than one month's time in obtaining certified copies of other documents. He firstly applied for obtaining certified copy on 6th February, 2013 and last application for obtaining the certified copy was filed by him on 7th March, 2013. This conduct shows that even, after obtaining certified copy of the judgment of the appellate authority, he remained so careless that he took more than one month's time for submitting application for certified copies of the grounds of appeal.
6. No doubt, there is no prescribed limitation for filing writ petition. It is an extraordinary Constitutional remedy which has to be provided in extraordinary circumstances, thus according to celebrated principle of law, the Courts have to apply their minds according to the material facts, prayed relief and other related legal and factual propositions of each case. In some cases, even if an aggrieved approaches the Court after passage of year's time, writ jurisdiction can be exercised to undo the continuing wrong or enforcement of any legal or fundamental right. But in some cases, even delay of couple of weeks' time may disentitle the appellant from relief if due to happening of irreversible events or developments during this period, vested legal rights have been created in favour of the other party. Therefore, no hard and fast rule can be laid down for universal application of the principles of laches rather it has to be applied keeping in view the circumstances of each case.
7. It is also pertinent to mention here that the question of laches in writ petition is always considered in the light of the conduct of the person invoking the writ jurisdiction of the High Court, the degree of his negligence if any, grant of relief sought by him, and the injustice to be caused to the opposite party. The laches in simplest form means failure of a person to do something which should have been done by him within a reasonable time and is not synonymous with delay alone but it can be worked out to the disadvantage to another person in the matter of his right. Our this view is fortified from the principle of law laid down by the apex Court of Pakistan in the case reported as Farzand Raza Naqvi and 5 others v. Muhammad Din through Legal Heirs and others [2004 SCM R 400].
8. The subject-matter of this lis is the proceedings conducted by the Rent Controller under the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Rent Restriction Act, 1986 which is a special law. In our opinion, while attending the question of laches, the spirit and scheme of special law dealing with the subject- matter cannot be overlooked. The provisions of special law clearly speaks that the legislature has even provided time frame for performance of specific acts on behalf of the concerned party, especially under the provisions of Section 14 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Rent Restriction Act, 1986, the Rent Controller is empowered to give reasonable time to the tenant for putting the landlord in possession of the building or rented land and may extend such time so as not to exceed four months in the aggregate. Keeping in view this statutory provision of special law, it is clear that after passage of specific period, especially when a person is negligent by his conduct, exercise of writ jurisdiction may result into causing injustice to the other party and also to defeat the very purpose of the special law.
9. In the instant case, the appellant has challenged the propriety of the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts/Tribunals of special jurisdiction after passage of more than 4 months' time.
The explanation advanced for delay is not satisfactory or having any substance. The High Court has rightly taken into consideration all the factors while dealing with the question of !Aches. This Court while attending the question of laches in relation to writ jurisdiction in the case reported as Nazar Hussain and 4 others v. Mst. Azmat Bibi and 9 others [2002 SCR 150], even considered 33 days' delay as fatal while following the principle of law laid down in the case reported as Mehboob Khan alias Maroof and 11 others v. Fazal Ellahi and 2 others [PLJ 1995 SC(AJK) 78]. In Nazar Hussain case, the Court's observation reads as follows:- "7. Unexplained delay is always considered fatal in writ jurisdiction as it attracts mischief of laches.
No satisfactory explanation has been furnished by the contesting respondent as to why she filed complaint about the incident after the delay of about 33 days."
10. Even otherwise, the High Court has rightly observed that without pointing out any lack of jurisdiction and violation of law, writ petition against concurrent findings recorded by Courts/Tribunals of special jurisdiction is not maintainable. We are quite in agreement with the reasons recorded in this regard by the High Court in the impugned judgment and do not feel necessity of repetition of the same. Thus, finding no force, this appeal stands dismissed with costs.
Civil .