IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN TUESDAY, THE 19TH OCTOBER 2010 / 27TH ASWINA 1932 OP (RC).No.325 of 2010(O) -------------------------------- RCOP.24/2007 of RENT CONTROL COURT, THRISSUR RCA.52/2010 of I ADDL. RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY, THRISSUR .................... PETITIONER -------------- ITTIMATHEW, AGED 80 YEARS, S/O. CHEERANVEETTIL CHERU, MISSION QUARTERS, THRISSUR DESOM, THRISSUR VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.K.N.PADMAKUMAR SRI.K.P.SAILESH (KECHERY) RESPONDENT(S): ------------------- ROSILY, W/O. NEDUMBULLY CHACHU, MISSION QUARTERS, CHEMBUKKAVU VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK, THRISSUR. ADV. SRI.V.CHITAMBARESH, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR R SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON FOR R SRI.JIBU P THOMAS FOR R SRI.P.S.APPU FOR R SRI.C.A.ANOOP FOR R THIS OP (RENT CONTROL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & P. S. GOPINATHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ O. P. (RC) No.325 of 2010 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 19th day of October, 2010 JUDGMENT Pius C. Kuriakose, J Under challenge in this Original Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is Ext.P8 order passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority. Even before Sri.K.N.Padmakumar opened his submissions before us, Sri.V.Chitambaresh, the learned senior counsel for the respondent would submit that the present Original Petition invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court is not maintainable in law. Drawing our attention to Section 20 of Act 2 of 1965, the learned senior counsel submitted that O. P. (RC) No.325 of 2010 -2- even if the petitioner has a genuine grievance about Ext.P8 his remedy lies in a different jurisdiction. We find much force in the above submission of the senior counsel. The O.P. is dismissed as not maintainable. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE P. S. GOPINATHAN JUDGE kns/-