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 16TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 25TH KARTHIKA 1932 OP (RC).No. 727 of 2010(O) -------------------------- PETITIONER ------------------------- S.P.ISMAIL, S/O.MOHAMMED, OPP: KAILAS THEATRE, P.O.KANHANGAD, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- K.SUDHAKARA SHENOY, S/O.LATE NARAYANA SHENOY, RESIDING K.M.C. W/11/518, OPP: KAILAS THEATRE, KANHANGAD - 671 315 KASARAGOD DISTRICT. THIS OP (RENT CONTROL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & P.S.GOPINATHAN, JJ. ------------------------ O.P.(R.C).No. 727 OF 2010 ------------------------ Dated this the 16th day of November, 2010 JUDGMENT Pius C.Kuriakose, J. Under challenge in this original petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution is Ext.P7 order passed by the Rent Control Court, Hosdrug. By Ext.P7 order, the Rent Control Court has dismissed an application filed by the petitioner tenant for setting aside the final report submitted by an advocate commissioner. The main ground, on which the petitioner sought for setting aside the final report, was that the final report has been filed by the Commissioner ignoring the directions of the Court already given under Ext.P4 remittal order. The ground, on which the petitioner is sought to be evicted, is the ground under sub section (8) of Section 11. The case of the petitioner/tenant is that during the pendnecy of the rent control petition a room adjacent to the building in possession of the landlord actually fell vacant and the landlord let out that room to another tenant. According to the petitioner, that room was having direct access to the building in the possession of the O.P.(RC).No.727/2010 2 landlord. But, for making it appear that there was no direct access from that room to the petitioner's present residential premises, the petitioner carried out certain constructions. Under Ext.P4 the commissioner has been directed to examine the above aspect of the matter. The grievance is that the commissioner in his final report has not examined the above aspect. 2. May be there are elements of genuineness in the grievance of the tenant. But, the question that arises before us is whether there is warrant for invocation of the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 for correcting Ext.P7. The above question, in our view, can be answered only in the negative. After all the commissioner's report is only an item of evidence on this basis of which the main case will be decided by the Rent Control Court. It is open to the petitioner to adduce further evidence and substantiate the contentions raised by him in the RCP before the Rent Control Court. At any rate Ext.P7 is only an interlocutory order. If the final decision of the Rent Control Court comes to be against the petitioner, it is open to the petitioner to urge the present grounds in appeal which he may become O.P.(RC).No.727/2010 3 compelled to file against the decision of the Rent Control Court. With these observations, we decline jurisdiction as it cannot be said that Ext.P7 is vitiated to the extent of warranting invocation of the supervisory jurisdiction. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE dpk