IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN THURSDAY, THE 5TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 14TH KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 31501 of 2009(G) -------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 22/08/2009 IN IA.653/2009 IN RCA.11/2009 OF RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY, ALAPPUZHA .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- C.X.JOSEPH, S/O.XAVIER, CHENNAKKATTU, PAZHAVANGADI, THIRUMALA WARD, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.B.PRAMOD RESPONDENT(S): --------------- MOHANDAS, S/O.GOWRI PADMANABHAN, PUTHENPURACKAL, THIRUMALA WARD, ALAPPUZHA. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------ WP(C). No. 31501 of 2009 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 5th day of November, 2009 J U D G M E N T Pius C. Kuriakose, J. Under challenge in this writ petition under article 227 of the Constitution of India filed by the landlord is Ext.P8 order of the Rent Control Appellate Authority. In Ext.P8, the learned Appellate Authority has passed a direction to adjourn delivery in the execution petition filed by the petitioner in RCP No. 7 of 2006 of Rent Control Court, Alappuzha. Mr. B.Pramod, learned counsel for the writ petitioner submitted that RCA No. 11 of 2009 in which IA. 653/09 resulting in Ext.P8 was filed, was not filed on time. There was a delay of two years and two months in the matter of instituting the RCA. The learned counsel's argument is that the learned Appellate Authority ought not have passed any interim order in favour of the appellant before the delay was condoned. Our attention was drawn WP(C) No. 31501/09 - 2 - by the learned counsel to Ext.P6 judgment of this Court in which at paragraph 7, this court has directed the execution court to consider expediting the execution proceedings. The submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner are not totally without force. But it appears to us that at the time when Ext.P6 was passed by this court, the RCA had not been instituted by the respondent. We are also told by Mr.Pramod that against the order of delivery passed by the Musiff Court the respondent had filed a Section 14 revision before the District Court and that it is only after the disposal of that revision that the RCA was filed by the respondent. The above submissions which appear to be correct will certainly show that the respondent will have difficulty in explaining the delay caused in the matter of instituting the RCA. At the same time, having regard to the parameters ordinarily adopted by this court for exercising supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227, we don't think WP(C) No. 31501/09 - 3 - that this is a fit case where the said jurisdiction can be invoked for correcting Ext.P8. Hence we decline jurisdiction. At the same time, we direct the Appellate Authority to take up I.A. No. 652/09 immediately and ensure that the above I.A. is decided at the earliest and at any rate, by the 30th of this month, if need be by posting the matter on a day-to- day basis. Once decision is taken in IA. No. 652/09, the learned Appellate Authority will ensure that the RCA is also disposed of at the earliest. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE ksv/-