MUHAMMAD ANAYAT KHAN versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, POONCH, RAWALAKOT AJ&K
Section 4, 14 and 18 to hear the appeal against the judgment passed by the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act (VII of 1974), the application for determination of fair rent for the premises of the 44 Writ petitions and the application for rent control. The jurisdiction of the Additional District Judge was strengthened. And the rent controller had accepted the eviction request from the landlord tenant who had filed an appeal against the appellate authority's decision of the rent controller which was dismissed on which the order approved by the appellate authority. It was challenged on the basis that the appellate authority was not nominated to the Additional District Judge under Azad Jammu. There was no jurisdiction to appeal, hear and hear against the decision of section 18 of the rent control restriction Act 1986 rent control restriction act under the Free Rent Restriction Act 1986. District Judges and Additional District Judges No Notice Needed in this regard, the SEED Act itself appointed district judges, as the appellate authority has jurisdiction over the area where the under-dwelling houses remain under appeal. Or he may refer to the Additional District for removal. The only restriction of the judge was that the Additional District Judge, to whom the appeal was assigned, should have jurisdiction over the matter of dispute, namely in the present case of the rental premises, which was filed before the Appellate District Judge, The district court heard the matter. The merits of the appeal were decided by the Additional District Judge, the tenant in the circumstances
