1. The facts relevant to this order are that Malik Anwar the owner of the premises No,F-215, Site had let out the same to Yousuf Sons (hereinafter referred to as "the tenant"). During the period of tenancy litigation over the title of said premises started between Malik Anwar (hereinafter referred to as "the .Landlord") and Malkani Traders. Such suit was filed in this Court. After such dispute and litigation the tenant through their partner Shoaib filed MRC No,160 of 1995 before the Rent Controller requesting therein for permission to deposit the rent with the Court. After grant of permission they deposited the rent with the Court. Later on S.J. Shahid Shah filed an application before the learned Rent Controller for permission to withdraw the rent deposited with the Court. He claimed himself to be the attorney of landlord Malik Anwar and also placed on record such power of attorney. Shoaib the partner of Yousuf Sons conceded to that request and permission was granted to S.J. Shahid Shah. He then withdrew the rent amounting Rs,11,40,000. Thereafter Malkani Traders who were litigating with Malik Anwar filed an application before the learned Rent Controller informing him that the power of attorney on the basis whereof the amount of rent was withdrawn by S.J. Shahid Shah was a forged document therefore, action be taken against the Respondents. The Court of the learned Rent Controller entered into exercise of verification from the concerned Sub-Registrar. After receiving the report from him that the power of attorney used for withdrawal of the rent was never registered with him, the learned Rent Controller ordered the prosecution of S.J. Shahid Shah and Shoaib, the partner of Yousuf Sons by order dated 5-3-2002, directing the COC to lodge the F.I.R with police at PS City Court Karachi.
2. Above order of the Rent Controller was appealed against before the District Judge, Karachi West through FRA No, 22 of 2002 which was dismissed on 11-12-2002, by the learned Vth Additional District Judge, Karachi West to whom it was assigned by the District Judge. Both of the orders have been assailed through present petition. Learned Advocate for the petitioner contends that the Rent Controller had no authority to order the prosecution, as the alleged forged power of attorney was filed before him in miscellaneous proceedings and not in a regular rent case. According to the learned Advocate, MRC miscellaneous rent case is not judicial proceedings. He further contended that the learned Appellate Court also committed illegality by dismissing the appeal treating it as not maintainable and refusing to exercise its appellate jurisdiction in disregard of the legal position that the order passed by the Rent Controller was appealable as it was final decision about prosecution of the two persons. The learned Advocate suggested for remand of matter to the Appellate Court for considering the merits. During the course of arguments, the learned Advocate further suggested that this Court should undertake verification about the genuiness of the power of attorney and take decision in that respect.
3. The controversy regarding the forged power of attorney is factual one and this Court in its Constitutional jurisdiction, cannot enter A into the exercise of making inquiries in respect of the factual controversy. As regards the status or classification of the Rent Controller he takes the evidence and determines the rights of the parties within the scope of Rent Restriction Ordinance 1979, and his decisions is definite unless challenged and set aside, therefore, he is a Court. This Court took same view in judgment dated 31-5-2001, in Cr. Misc. No,166 of 2000 which was approved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in Cr. PLA No,46 of 2001, decided vide judgment dated 16-11-2001. The Miscellaneous Rent case is also judicial proceedings. In those proceedings also the Rent Controller has to decide judicially as to who is entitled to withdraw the amount of Rent deposited with him and to what extent. He has also to take judicial decision as to whether the Rent deposited with him is valid tender/offer of rent due. And his finding in that respect is definitive unless upset by an appellate forum. Thus he is surely a Court. The controversial power of attorney was used before the Rent Controller and after being satisfied that the same was forged one he passed order for the prosecution of the petitioner. He being Court could take cognizance of the offence under section 193 P.P.0 or file a complaint. Therefore, contentions of petitioner's learned Advocate that the Rent Controller was not Court and could not order the prosecution are devoid of substance. The contention of the learned Advocate that the Appellate Court dismissed the appeal as not maintainable cannot be accepted as whole truth. Perusal of the appellate order shows clearly that the learned Additional District Judge discussed the merits and held the order of Rent Controller dated 5-3-2001, to have been passed competently. After that he added that the appeal was liable to be dismissed also for being not maintainable. Since the merits have also been considered and conclusions drawn the order is deemed to have been passed on merits exercising appellate jurisdiction which he could legitimately exercise as order impugned through the appeal was not an interlocutory one. It was final decision of a particular question/issue. It will be relevant to mention here that the Rent Controller has neither taken cognizance of the offence himself nor filed the complaint. He directed COC to lodge the F.I.R. Neither the copy of the F.I.R. Is before this Court for knowing as to for what offence the case has been registered nor the learned Advocate argued on that aspect of the matter. Obviously in that respect the law shall take its own course and the applicant can seek remedy, if any, warranted under law. Present petition, however, merits no consideration and is dismissed in limine.