1. ' SARDAR ABDUL HAMEED KHAN, J.---Through this writ petition, the petitioner has called in question the orders of Appellate Authority (District Judge) dated 9-10-2012 and of Rent Controller Muzaffarabad dated 18-6-2012, whereby the application filed by petitioner before the Rent Controller for restoration of the ejectment petition, kept in abeyance due to litigation between the alleged owners of the rented property was rejected. The learned District Judge/appellate Authority concurred with the Rent Controller and dismissed the appeal of the petitioner.
2. ' Mr. Saghir Javaid Advocate learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously argued that the impugned orders are liable to be declared passed without lawful authority and of no legal effect by granting the writ of certiorari. It was further argued by the learned counsel that the dispute of ownership of the shop has been decided by the competent Court in his favour, hence the restoration and proceedings on the ejectment application should have been ordered by the trial Court. The learned counsel submitted that the contents and grounds of the writ petition be considered as integral part of his arguments and prayer may be granted.
3. ' While controverting the arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioner Mr. K.D. Khan learned counsel for the private respondent precisely argued and pointed out that no writ lies against the concurrently passed impugned orders of the respective authorities. The learned counsel further argued that interim orders of Rent Controller are not subject to challenge by filing writ petition. The learned counsel referred 1997 CLC 1822 in support of his contention and prayed for the dismissal of the writ petition with special costs.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Need not to discuss the facts of the case, suffice to say that this is a case wherein the findings of facts have been concurred by both the authorities, which are not subjected to challenge by filing constitutional petition as it would amount to defeat the legislative intent of speedy disposal of rent cases.
5. Moreover, the respondent authorities are the administrative tribunal of exclusive jurisdiction and interim orders passed by the Rent Controller and upheld by the District Judge (Appellate Authority) are not questionable by way of revision or writ petition as stipulated under section 18(7) of Rent Restriction Act. This view of mine is fortified by the following case law:-- 'PLD 1997 Lahore 1773. ---Art. 199---Writ petition against interim order passed by Rent Controller under West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (1959)---Held: petition is incompetent.
6. 'PLD 1983 SC (AJ & K) 204.
7. ' This appeal, by leave, has been moved to discredit the judgment passed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court in chamber on 22-1-1983. By this order the learned Judge felt advised to dismiss the revision petition, moved by the petitioner, in limine.
8. ' Xxxxxxxxxxxxx Xxxxxxxxxxxxx Under subsection (7) of section 18, Azad Jammu and Kashmir Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1980, 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" 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 harassm ent which they have to face for the lengthy and protracted litigation to get their grievance redressed within a reasonable time. Therefore, a revision petition to assail the order of District Judge is incompetent.
9. 'PLJ 1997 LAHORE 1446 = 1997 CLC 1822.
10. ' Art. 199 read with Punjab Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959. Rent Controller's interim order for depositing of rent---Challenge through Constitutional Petition---Learned Rent Controller directing tenant to deposit arrears of rent as well as further rent pending decision of ejectment application against him being purely interim in nature could not be subject to challenge by filing constitutional petition as it would mount to defeating legislative intent. Petition dismissed.
11. ' In the light of above said reasons the writ petition is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.