IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI THURSDAY, THE 23RD JULY 2009 / 1ST SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 20713 of 2009(H) -------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 30/06/2009 IN I.A.NO.4255/09 IN RCP.38/07 I.A.NO.4259/09 IN RCP.39/07, ,I.A.NO.4257/09 IN R.C.P.NO. 40/07,I.A.NO.4260/09 IN RCP.NO.42/07, I.A.NO.4258/07 IN RCP.NO.43/07, I.A.NO.4256/09 IN RCP.NO. 50 OF 2007 of I ADDL.M.C.,TRIVANDRUM .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. HAMEEDA BEEVI D/O.LATE MARIYAM BEEVI, KOTTAPAKKU HOUSE MARKET ROAD, CHALAI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM NOW RESIDING AT SANI BHAVAN, TC.18/3055, SREE NAGAR, MUTTADA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. NASARIN ,D/O.LATE MOHAMMED HUSSAIN, KOTTAPAKKU HOUSE, MARKET ROAD, CHALAI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. NISIYA, D/O.MOHAMMED HUSSAIN -DO- -DO- 4. NASEEF, S/O.LATE MOHAMMED HUSSAIN, -DO- (PETITIONERS 3&4 ARE MINORS AND REPRESENTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER. BY ADV. SRI.B.SATHIQ SRI.C.ANIRUDHAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. T.SARASWATHI AMMA, T.C.39/561, MARKET ROAD, CHALAI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. V.RAVEENDRAN NAIR TC.39/563, MARKET ROAD, CHALAI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. A.MUJEEBUR RAHUMAN TC.39/557, MARKET ROAD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM WPC.NO.20713/09 4. D.R.RAJU, TC.39/556 , MARKET ROAD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 5. SANTHOSH, TC 39/556, MARKET ROAD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 6. M.JALALUDEEN, TC 39/562, MARKET ROAD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 7. MANIYAN, TC 39/560, MARKET ROAD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C).No.20713 OF 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 23rd day of July, 2009 JUDGMENT Pius.C.Kuriakose, J. The landlords being the legal heirs of the original landlords are the petitioners in this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution. The petitioners seek to set aside Exts.P11 to P16 orders passed by the Rent Control Court. Exts.P11 to P16 were passed on applications filed by the petitioners seeking review of Ext.P1 common order in six rent control petitions filed by the landlords for eviction on the common ground of requirement of reconstruction ( Section 11(4)(iv). The rent control petitions were instituted in respect of different portions of a larger building and the requirement of reconstruction was urged as a common ground in all the rent control petitions. In one of the rent control petitions, there was an additional ground namely the ground under Clause (iii) of Sub Section (4) of Section 11. Under Ext.P1 order the Rent Control WPC.NO.20713/09 2 Court allowed only that RCP in which the ground under Section 11(4) (iii) had been invoked. The petitioners filed separate review petitions seeking review of the order declining eviction under Section 11(4)(iv) alleging that Ext.P1 order declining eviction under Section 11(4)(iv) is the result of a patent mistake committed by the Rent Control Court. By Exts.P11 to P16 all the review petitions were dismissed by the rent control court. 2. We have heard the submissions of Sri.B.Sathiq, learned counsel for the writ petitioners. Sri.Sathiq drew our attention to Exts.P11 to P16. According to Sri.Sathiq the eviction petitions were dismissed by the rent control court on the only reason that there was no evidence to hold that the writ petitioners who were the legal heirs of the original landlords were possessed of a valid building permit for carrying out the proposed reconstruction. Sri.Sathiq submitted that building permits issued by the local authority in favour of the original landlords were on record and those building permits did enure to the benefit of the writ petitioners being the legal heirs of the original WPC.NO.20713/09 3 landlords. 3. Sri.Sathiq submitted that as a matter of fact within 28 days of the demise of the original landlords, the writ petitioners - the present landlords, had submitted applications to the local authority for change of the permits into their favour and the said applications were favourably considered by the local authority. Learned counsel submitted that it is after obtaining the permit in their favour that the review petitions were filed. It is those review petitions which are now dismissed by Exts.P11 to P16 order. Exts.P11 to P16, according to the learned counsel, are liable to be quashed under Article 227 of the Constitution and relegating the petitioners to remedies by way of regular appeals will result in delay in the matter of final disposal of the courts. We have considered the rival submissions. We have gone through Ext.P1 order of the Rent Control Court dismissing the Rent Control Petitions as well as to Exts.P11 to P16 dismissing the review petitions. We do not think that a case is made out for invocation of the WPC.NO.20713/09 4 supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 for correcting Exts.P11 to P16 . Supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 is a visitorial jurisdiction which will be invoked by this court only in exceptional circumstances . It cannot be stated that Exts.P11 to P16 are orders passed without jurisdiction. It cannot be stated that those orders violate any clear provisions of law- statutory or settled. It can never be stated that those orders are so wholly unreasonable that they can be branded as perverse orders. It cannot also be stated that those orders result in any patent injustice or failure of justice. According to us, the remedy of the petitioners who are aggrieved by Ext.P1 order was to prefer regular appeals against that order and this is the ground on which Exts.P11 to P16 orders have been passed by the Rent Control Court. In view of Section 18 of Act 2 of 1965, Exts.P11 to P16 are also appealable and it is open to the petitioners to prefer appeals against Exts.P11 to P16 also. It is trite that a review can never be a substitute for a regular appeal. At any rate guaging Exts.P11 to P16 by the parameters applicable to the exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under WPC.NO.20713/09 5 Article 227, we do not find any warrant at all for invocation of the supervisory jurisdiction. The writ petition will stand dismissed. But it is made clear that this judgment will not stand in the way of the petitioners preferring regular appeals against Exts.P1 or Exts.P11 to P16 or against all these orders, if so advised. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE JUDGE P.Q.BARKATH ALI JUDGE sv. WPC.NO.20713/09 6