IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM THURSDAY, THE 11TH AUGUST 2011 / 20TH SRAVANA 1933 OP (RC).No. 2644 of 2011(O) --------------------------- RCP.10/2010 of MUNSIFF COURT, TIRUR .................... PETITIONER/LANDLORD: ---------------------------------------- ASSAINAR, S/O.KADIR, VALATHUPARAMBIL HOUSE, PONMUNDOM P.O., TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.JAMSHEED HAFIZ RESPONDENT(S): TENANTS: ----------------------- ABDUL MAJEED, S/O.MUHAMMED @ CHERIYA BAPPU, PLARAPPATHY HOUSE, PONMUNDOM P.O., TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676 106. THIS OP (RENT CONTROL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------ O.P.(RC).No. 2644 OF 2011 ------------------------ Dated this the 11th day of August, 2011 JUDGMENT Pius C.Kuriakose, J. Under challenge in this original petition filed under Article 227 is Ext.P7 order of the Rent Control Court, Tirur. Under Ext.P7, the learned Rent Control Court dismissed the application filed by the petitioner to set aside the commission report. On going through Ext.P7 it is seen that while passing the order appointing the commissioner, the learned Rent Control Court had permitted the petitioner to submit work memo before the Commissioner, so that report can be obtained on the aspects on which the petitioner wants a report. For reasons best known to him, the petitioner did not submit any work memo. The learned Rent Control Court has noticed that one of the grounds, on which the commission report is sought to be set aside, is that the O.P.(RC).No.2644/2011 2 commissioner has not reported certain relevant aspects. 2. We have gone through Ext.P7. The question is whether Ext.P7 can be branded as an order which is liable to be visited under the supervisory jurisdiction of this court under Article 227. This court does not interfere with every order passed by the Subordinate Court under Article 227 even if the order is illegal. This court interferes only when an order can be said to be per se illegal in the sense that the same has been passed without jurisdiction or the same offends a clear provision of law either statutory or settled or the order is such a nature as can be branded as perverse in the sense that such order will not be passed by anybody having reasonable learning and training in law. Gauging Ext.P7 order by those para meters, it is clear to our mind that Ext.P7 is not liable to be visited under the supervisory jurisdiction of this court which is visitorial in nature. The original petition will stand dismissed. However, we make it clear that in case the final result of the rent control petition comes to be against the petitioner and it becomes necessary to the petitioner to prefer an appeal, the petitioner will have the liberty of urging the various grounds raised in this O.P.(RC).No.2644/2011 3 original petition as grounds in that prospective Rent Control appeal. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE dpk