IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD NOVEMBER 2010 / 12TH KARTHIKA 1932 OP(C).No. 552 of 2010(O) ------------------------------ AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 05/10/2010 IN IA 162/08 & IA 1711/08 IN RCA.71/2004 of DISTRICT COURT, THALASSERY .................... PETITIONER -------------- PALLIVALAPPIL HAFSATHBI, W/O.A.K.P.ABDUL MAJEED, AGED 63 YEARS, HAFSATH MANZIL, MARAKKARKANDY, KANNUR. BY ADV. SRI.V.RAMKUMAR NAMBIAR RESPONDENT(S): ------------------- 1. NYJIL F.S., S/O.JOHN SIMON, AGED 32 YEARS, M Y 16/75, HAFSATH QUARTERS, THAYYIL, KANNUR - 670003. 2. NAINA SANTHOSH, D/O.JOHN SIMON, AGED 38 YEARS, M Y 16/75, HAFSATH QUARTERS, THAYYIL, KANNUR - 670003. THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & P. S. GOPINATHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ Original Petition (Civil) No.552 of 2010 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 3rd day of November, 2010 JUDGMENT Pius C. Kuriakose, J Under challenge in this Original Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is Ext.P5 order passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Thalassery. According to the petitioner/ landlady, the tenant in occupation of the building in question was one Daicy Simon who died as a spinster without any issues. According to the petitioner, nobody is entitled to be impleaded as legal heir or representative of the deceased tenant. But respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed I.A. No.1711/08 seeking their impleadment as additional respondents in the RCA on the basis Original Petition (Civil) No.552 of 2010 -2- that they are the legal representatives of the deceased tenant. I.A.162/08 was filed by the landlady for recording the death of the tenant and for declaring that the tenancy has come to an end. Under Ext.P5, the learned Appellate Authority has dismissed the I.A. filed by the landlady and allowed the I.A. filed by respondent Nos.1 and 2. Various grounds are raised in this O.P. challenging Ext.P5. Sri.Ramkumar Nambiar, the learned counsel for the petitioner addressed us on the basis of all those grounds. He referred to Rule 5 Order 22 CPC also. 2. We have considered the submissions and we have carefully gone through Ext.P5. The only question to be considered by us is whether Ext.P5 order passed by the Appellate Authority warrants interference under the supervisory jurisdiction of Original Petition (Civil) No.552 of 2010 -3- this Court under Article 227. It will be noticed immediately that the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 is a visitorial jurisdiction which is not liable to be invoked for correcting each and every order that is passed by the Subordinate Court. The above jurisdiction will be invoked very sparingly. According to us, visitorial jurisdiction can be invoked only when it can be said that the order passed by the Subordinate Court is per se illegal in the sense that it violates law either statutory or settled. It can also be invoked when it can be said that the order has been passed without jurisdiction. It can also be invoked when it can be said that the order is so wholly unreasonable that the same can be branded as perverse in the sense that such an order will not be authored by anybody having reasonable Original Petition (Civil) No.552 of 2010 -4- learning and training in law. Gauging Ext.P5 by the parametres which are applicable for the invocation of the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227, we are unable to say that there is warrant in this case for invocation of that jurisdiction. In that view of the matter, we dismiss the O.P. The learned Rent Control Appellate Authority will notice that the RCA is instituted way back in 2004 and will ensure that the RCA is disposed of at the earliest. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE P. S. GOPINATHAN JUDGE kns/-