CH. MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM ZIA, C.J.---The captioned appeal by leave of the Court is the outcome of the judgment of the High Court dated 15.05.2018, whereby the writ petition filed by appellant, herein, has been dismissed in limine.
2. The precise facts of the case are that the appellants and respondent No.1, herein, entered into an agreement of rent pertaining to property/Plaza situated at plot Nos.233/232, Sector F-1, Mirpur. The respondent-landlord moved an application for ejectment of the tenants before the Rent Controller, Mirpur. During the pendency of said application, the landlord filed another application on 03.03.2017 for enhancement of rent and claimed monthly rent of Rs.1,77,155/-. The appellant, herein, filed objections on the application. After due process, the learned Rent Controller accepted application vide order dated 15.07.2017 with the direction to the appellant, herein, to deposit Rs.64,420/-. The appeal before the District Judge was dismissed vide order dated 18.09.2017. The writ petition before the High Court also failed, hence, this appeal by leave of the Court.
3. Mr. Taimoor Ali Khan, Advocate, the learned counsel for the appellants after narration of necessary facts seriously objected the impugned judgment on the ground that the learned High Court has failed to properly apply the judicial mind and appreciate the statutory provisions of section 14(8) of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Rent Restriction Act, 1986 according to which for payment of any due rent, the order can only be passed before framing of issues in the ejectment application. The defendant-appellants were neither defaulter nor any rent was due to them. The application was filed at such stage when no order of such nature could have been passed.
Even otherwise, the matter raised in the application was factual requiring recording of evidence but the Courts below have not applied judicial mind. The writ petition was filed by the appellants, which has been illegally dismissed in limine.
4. Conversely, Miss Ghazala Haider Lodhi, Advocate, the learned counsel for the contesting respondents opposed the appeal on the ground that the proceedings relating to the rent matter are conducted under the special law i.e. the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Rent Restriction Act, 1986. The expeditious disposal of the issues arising between the landlord and the tenant is the spirit of the special law. The Rent Controller is vested with the vast powers relating to conducting of the proceedings. The order passed by the Rent Controller is well-reasoned and speaking one in which it has been clearly mentioned that the order of depositing the rent is tentative and subject to adjustment at the time of final disposal of the matter. Neither there is any violation of law nor lack of jurisdiction, hence, the writ petition is not competent which was only filed with mala intention to defeat the purpose of law, protection of ill-gotten-gains and creation of hardships in disposal of the case. Thus, this appeal is liable to be dismissed with special costs.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record made available. According to the stated facts, admittedly the relationship of landlord and the tenant is undisputed. It is also admitted fact that the matter of ejectment of the tenant is subjudce before the Rent Controller which is awaiting final disposal. The instant appeal only relates to an interim order dated 15.07.2017 passed by the Rent Controller under section 14(8) of the Rent Restriction Act, 1986. It will be useful to reproduce here the operating part of the order, which reads as under:-- {{URDU TEXT}} The above reproduced order clearly speaks that the Rent Controller ordered for depositing the tentative amount of rent of March to June, 2017 and there-after depositing the monthly rent at the tentatively assessed rate. It is clearly mentioned that the amount so paid or deposited is subject to adjustment at the time of final disposal of the matter between the parties, thus, neither it is a final order nor the matter has been finally disposed of.
6. The argument of learned counsel for the respondents relating to the nature of proceedings conducted by the Rent Controller, has substance. For this special purpose a special law is enforced and the Rent Controller is vested with the vast powers. Even he is not bound to follow the procedure stipulated in Civil Procedure Code and has discretionary power to hold inquiry Our this view finds support from the principle of law laid down in the case reported as Sheikh Khalid Mehmood v. Mallick Muhammad Irfan PLD 1983 SC (AJ&K) 204 wherein after due deliberation the purpose of special law and powers of Rent Controller have been discussed. It has been held in the referred case that the Rent Controller while performing functions under the special law has to act in a quasi-judicial capacity. In this context, paragraphs 15 and 16 of the judgment are relevant, which are reproduced as under:- "15. We are also not in agreement with Mr. Gillani, Advocate, that the Rent Restriction Controller acts as a Court. Though under section 18(6) of the Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1980, the Controller has been given powers of summoning and enforcing the attendance of witnesses and compelling the production of evidence, he is not bound in every case to follow the procedure stipulated in the Code of Civil Procedure. He has been given powers to make orders after holding such-inquiry as he thinks fit. It would be thus observed that the question to exercise the nature and extent of inquiry is purely his discretion and the parties have no right to insist upon for production of such evidence as they desire to adduce in support of their case. The inquiry in such like cases is akin to any inquiry conducted by an executive officer. We however concede that some of the functions of the Controller are judicial in character yet he is not required to act judicially in discharging many of his functions.
16. In the result we hold that the Controller while performing his functions under Rent Ordinance does not act as a Court. At the most it may be said that he acts in quasi-judicial capacity."
In the light of above stated legal and factual propositions, it is clear that neither there was any lack of jurisdiction nor any violation of law, hence, the writ petition filed by the appellants has been rightly dismissed in limine.
Therefore, finding no force this appeal stands dismissed with no order as to costs