The landlord has the right to apply for an order directing the tenant to deposit arrears of rent, and the tenant would lose the right to contest the landlord's suit for ejectment if he fails to pay the admitted rent, past or present.

Bansi Lal Bhat, J.

1. This petition is directed against the order dated 17.11.2014, passed by the Court of learned 2nd Additional District Judge, Jammu, in Civil Suit filed by the respondent against the petitioner, whereby while framing issues in the suit for ejectment titled Narinder Sharma v. Dinesh Mahajan, two applications dated 04.09.2010 and 15.10.2013 filed by the respondent seeking recovery of arrears of rent from August, 2009 onwards have been allowed and the petitioner has been directed to deposit the arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 1660/- for the month of August, 2009 and 10,53,586/- as arrears of rent upto September, 2013, within a period of 15 days from the date of the order. The petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 104 of the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir for issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing the aforesaid order dated 17.11.2014.

2. The factual matrix of the case may briefly be adverted to Respondent filed a petition under Section 11(A) and 11(B) of the Jammu and Kashmir Houses and Shops Rent Control Act, (for short 'Act') before the trial court praying for restoration of possession. On consideration of the matter, the trial court in terms of order dated 07.05.2009 dismissed the same. Feeling aggrieved of the order dated 07.05.2009 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, (Rent Controller), Jammu, the respondent preferred an appeal against the same before the learned Principal District Judge, Jammu, who, after considering the matter, passed the order dated 09.10.2012 dismissing the appeal observing that the order of the trial court does not suffer from any illegality and has not infracted any provisions of law. It is stated that during the pendency of the suit for ejectment, the respondent filed two applications dated 04.09.2010 and 15.10.2013 for recovery of arrears of rent outstanding against the petitioner. It appears that the court of learned 2nd Additional District Judge, Jammu, after considering the matter passed the impugned order dated 17.11.2014, whereby the petitioner has been directed to deposit the arrears of rent detailed in the preceding paragraph. The impugned order dated 17.11.2014 has been assailed by the petitioner on various grounds. He has stated that the impugned order is not legally permissible because while framing issues the trial court cannot allow the two applications filed by the respondent with respect to recovery of arrears of rent and it could have been done only after deciding the issues framed by the trial court. It is also stated that whether the respondent is entitled to any arrears of rent is a main issue, which can be determined at the final stage. It is contended that the trial court has virtually allowed the civil suit filed by the respondent. It is further stated that arrears of rent claimed by the respondent were time barred and thus are not legally recoverable. It is also stated that the impugned order suffers from non application of mind and does not have any legal sanctity.

3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the matter.

4. Before proceeding further in the matter, it would be appropriate to have a look on the issue with regard to maintainability of the writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read the Section 104 of the Constitution of Jammu & Kashmir State. A petition filed under Article 227, stricto sensu is not a writ petition. The nature of exercise of power under Article 227 stands on substantially different footing. Jurisdiction under Article 227 is neither original nor appellate. Article 227 vests jurisdiction in the High Court both for administrative control and judicial superintendence over the courts and tribunals subordinate to it. Jurisdiction under Article 227 can be exercised to substitute the order impugned by an order which the inferior tribunal should have passed. This is apart from annulling the