' MUNIR AHMED CHAUDHARY, J.---This writ petition has been filed under section 44 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act, 1974, through which the following prayer was solicited:-- "It is therefore, most respectfully prayed that by accepting this writ petition, may kindly be accepted, impugned judgment passed by the learned District Judge Rent Controller Mirpur dated 30-10-2012 and the Rent Controller dated 30-12-2011 may kindly be set at naught. Any other relief permissible under law may also be granted in favour of the petitioner."
2. Brief facts as stated in the writ petition are that the petitioner being tenant of a shop filed an application for fair rent before Rent Controller Mirpur and the respondent No,1 being owner of the shop filed an application for ejectment against the petitioner before Rent Controller Mirpur. Both the parties 'filed objections and contested the cases. After hearing both the parties, Rent Controller Mirpur accepted the application for ejectment and dismissed the application for determination of fair rent. The petitioner preferred an appeal before District Judge Mirpur which was also dismissed.
It was further stated that the judgment of District Judge is legally not tenable and the learned Judge has failed to consider the oral and documentary evidence placed on record. Both the courts below have failed to consider and appreciate an important aspect of the case that the petitioner runs his business in the said shop and has no alternate source of his income. The petitioner has been paying monthly rent regularly and there is no complaint against him. It was prayed in the manner mentioned above.
3. Respondents submitted parawise comments, stating therein that the petition is hit by the doctrine of laches and liable to be dismissed. The petitioner has not deposited outstanding amount of rent of the shop since January 2010 along with increased rental amount till filing of the instant writ petition, so the petition is liable to be dismissed. The petitioner has filed the instant writ petition in the shape of an appeal, which is not maintainable. Both the subordinate courts decided the case against the petitioner and in favour of respondent No,1 concurrently in accordance with the provisions of law. So, the petitioner has got no locus standi to file the instant writ petition. It was prayed to dismiss the writ petition in limine.
4. Preliminary arguments were advanced by the earned counsel for the parties who only repeated their version as taken in the pleadings. After hearing the arguments, I have gone through the record minutely. It is an admitted principle of law that Rent Controller has been given powers of summoning and enforcing the attendance of witnesses and it is in his discretion to decide the nature and extent of inquiry in the manner A he thinks proper. It has been held in the precedent PLD 1983 SC (AJ&K) 204 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 of C.P.C. It has also been held by the apex Court of AJ&K in a Civil Appeal No,29 of 2012 titled Nazir Ahmed and others v. Riaz Ahmed and others vide judgment dated 15-3-2013 as under:-- "If the High Court while exercising constitutional powers vested in it under section 44 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act, 1974, reaches to the conclusion that the trial Court or District Judge while exercising revisional jurisdiction has failed to exercise powers vested in it under relevant provision of law and order is against the legal provision, then a writ of mandamus can be issued to such Court but while exercising constitutional jurisdiction the High Court cannot exercise those powers which are vested in it as an appellate Court. There is a marked distinction between the powers vested in the High Court under section 44 of the writ jurisdiction as a constitutional Court and powers vested in it as a Court of appeal. 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 is against the legal provision."
5. The same principle has been laid down 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."
6. The above mentioned principle was also laid down 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."
7. While going through the above-mentioned principles, it is clear that 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 orders passed by such Courts cannot be set aside by the High Court while exercising writ jurisdiction.
8. In the present case, the petitioner and the respondents contested their case before Rent Controller and thereafter before District Judge Mirpur. Both the parties produced evidence on their behalf and the case was decided firstly by the Rent Controller and then by the District Judge in accordance with the provisions of law. It has not been pointed out that the courts below exercised their jurisdiction without legal justification or exercised the powers which were not vested to the said courts. The learned District Judge recorded his judgment on 30-10-2012 while the instant writ petition was filed on 16-3-2013, after 5 months approximately. The explanation mentioned through an application that copies of the judgments were not provided to the petitioner within time, is not reliable. The writ petition could be filed soon after the judgment of District Judge was announced even without appending copies of the said judgments with permission of the court. The instant writ petition is hit by the doctrine of laches as well.
'In the light of what has been stated above, the instant writ petition stands dismissed in limine.