IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 8TH JUNE 2011 / 18TH JYAISHTA 1933 OP (RC).No. 1806 of 2011(O) --------------------------- (I.A.NO.13360/2010 IN RCP.14/2010 of PRL.MUNSIFF COURT,THRISSUR) .................... PETITIONER ---------------------- JOY ALAPPAT, S/O. ALAPPAT PORINCHU PAUL, AGED 45 YEARS, DOOR NO.210/9, ADAT ROAD, MUTHUVARA, PUZHAKKAL VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.THIYYANNOOR RAMAKRISHNAN SRI.ARUN KUMAR.P SMT.AMBIKA RADHAKRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- RAMAKRISHNAN, S/O. KARTHIYINI AMMA, KUNNATHULLY HOUSE, MUTHUVARA DESOM, PUZHAKKAL VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK. THIS OP (RENT CONTROL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JJ. ------------------------ O.P.(RC).No. 1806 OF 2011 ------------------------ Dated this the 8th day of June, 2011 JUDGMENT Pius C.Kuriakose, J. Under challenge in this original petition filed under Article 227 is Ext.P6 order passed by the Rent Control Court, Thrissur in I.A. No.13360/2010 in RCP No. 14/2010 . The rent control petition was instituted by the respondent/landlord invoking the ground of additional accommodation under sub section (8) of Section 11. Along with the rent control petition, the landlord moved for issuance of a commission for the conduct of local inspection. The commissioner conducted inspection and filed a report. The petitioner/tenant filed I.A. No.13360/2010 (Ext.P5) for setting aside the advocate commissioner's report (Ext.P3) and for appointment of a new commissioner for conduct of inspection with reference to 12 points mentioned in Ext.P5. The learned Rent Control Court under Ext.P6 has remitted Ext.P3 report to the very same advocate commissioner permitting both O.P.RC.No.1806/2011 2 sides to furnish work memos before the commissioner so that the commissioner will file an additional report with reference to the aspects mentioned in the work memos. Ext.P6 is challenged in this original petition on various grounds including the following main grounds. i). The court below should have set aside the commission report accepting the reasons stated in the affidavit in support of Ext. P5 and appointed any other advocate as commissioner than the author of Ext.P3. ii). Ext.P3 was per se bad as the commissioner had conducted inspection without issuing notice to the tenant before commencement of the inspection. iii). If notice had been given before the inspection commenced, the petitioner would have been able O.P.RC.No.1806/2011 3 to convince the commissioner as to why the building remained closed while the commissioner came to the building for inspection and also as to the unsightly condition of the building at that time. 2. Sri.P.Arun Kumar, learned counsel for the original petitioner addressed very fervent submissions before us on the basis of the grounds raised, particularly three points enumerated above. 3. The question that arises before us is whether Ext.P6 is vitiated to the extent of warranting correction under the visitorial jurisdiction of this court under Article 227 of the Constitution. It is trite by various decisions that visitorial jurisdiction under Article 227 is not to be invoked for correcting each and every wrong order that is passed by Subordinate Courts. Visitorial jurisdiction will be invoked in exceptional circumstances i.e. when it can be stated that the order is per se illegal in the sense that it has been passed without jurisdiction or it clearly offends law, statutorily or settled or when it can be described as so O.P.RC.No.1806/2011 4 wholly unreasonable to be described as perverse in the sense that such an order will not be authored by anybody having reasonable learning and training in law. Gauging Ext.P6 by para meters that are applicable to the exercise of the visitorial jurisdiction, it is very clear to our mind that Ext.P6 is not liable to be visited under the above jurisdiction. 4. The question whether Ext.P3 report is liable to be set aside is a question which can be decided by the court only after the parties go for trial and the commissioner is cross examined with reference to the statement of objection filed to Ext.P3. In fact, Ext.P3 along with the further report to be submitted by the commissioner pursuant to Ext.P6 will form part of the record. Acceptability of the matters reported by the commissioners is a matter to be decided by the rent control court at the time of conclusion of trial by evaluating the reports and the oral evidence which comes to be adduced with reference to the above report. Admittedly and evidently order leading to Ext.P3 was passed ex parte. Even when appointment of a commissioner is made ex parte, the commissioner is expected to give notice to the respondent in the commission application if he is available at O.P.RC.No.1806/2011 5 the time of inspection. In the instant case, we find from Ext.P3 that notice was actually given to the petitioner who was very much present when the inside portions of the building was inspected. What is highlighted as objectionable is the report in the first paragraph of Ext.P3 that before the inspection commenced, as described by the counsel for the landlord, the commissioner inspected the outside of the building and reported on the basis of such inspection that the building was found locked. The petitioner does not contend that the building was not locked. What he contends is that if the notice had been given to him, he would have been in a position to explain the reason as to why the building was kept locked at that time. According to us, we do not see much relevance in the above portion of the report in the present rent control petition where the ground invoked is sub section (8) of Section 11. Whatever that be, it is always open to the petitioner to convince the rent control court by adducing cogent evidence as to why the building in question was found locked when the commissioner came to the building for commencing inspection. Declining jurisdiction, we dismiss this original petition in O.P.RC.No.1806/2011 6 limine. The learned Rent Control Court is directed to expeditious matters and ensure that the rent control petition is disposed of at the earliest. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE dpk