IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM TUESDAY, THE 10TH AUGUST 2010 / 19TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 24987 of 2010(W) -------------------------- OS.514/2006 of MUNSIFF COURT, PARAVUR .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- MOHAMMED IQBAL, AGED 46 YEARS, S/O.MAMMU, CHIRAPPURATH HOSUE, MANJALI MURI, KARUMALLORE VILLAGE, PARAVUR TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.SIRAJ KAROLY RESPONDENT(S): --------------- KOCHUTHRESSYA @ BABY, AGED 73 YEARS, W/O.AVARA, POONTHOPPUPURAYIDATHIL, PARAVOORTHARA MURI, PARAVOOR TALUK. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ---------------------------------- WP(C). No.24987 of 2010 ---------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of August, 2010 JUDGMENT ---------------- Pius C.Kuriakose,J. Under challenge in this writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is Ext.P7 order. By Ext.P7 order the Rent Control Court, North Paravur dismissed an application under Section 10 of Code of Civil Procedure filed by the petitioner/tenant for stay of the trial of the Rent Control Petition on the reason that in respect of the petition schedule building a suit for specific performance of contract for sale was filed by the petitioner and that the above suit was decreed and that the matter is now pending before the High Court in R.F.A.No.273/2009. The learned Rent Control Court noticed that the Rent Control Petition was filed invoking ground of arrears of rent. Though not in so many words, the learned Rent Control Court has taken the view that the order of eviction to be passed in a case for eviction under Section 11(2)(b) is WP(C). 24987/10 2 only a tentative order, which is liable to be vacated under Section 11(2)(c). Sri. Siraj Karoly, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that a finding in the Rent Control Petition that the jural status of the petitioner is that of a tenant can cause prejudice to the petitioner as the suit for specific performance is presently pending in this court. He urges that Ext.P7 be set aside and the petition filed by the petitioner be allowed and the RCP be stayed. 2. Even though Mr.Siraj Karoly's arguments were very persuasive, having regard to the well delineated contours of this court's jurisdiction under Article 227, we are not inclined to interfere with Ext.P7. Jurisdiction under Article 227 is a visitorial jurisdiction which is invoked only very sparingly. The above jurisdiction is not invoked for correcting every illegal order that is passed by a subordinate court. It is invoked only when order passed by the subordinate court is per se illegal in the sense that it violates law either statutory or settled, or the same is passed without jurisdiction, or the order is so wholly unreasonable that the same can be branded as a perverse WP(C). 24987/10 3 order in the sense that such an order will not be authored by anybody with reasonable learning or training in Law. We are not in a position to say that Ext.P7 is liable to be decided with the jurisdiction under Article 227. 3. As for the submission of Mr.Siraj Karoly that a finding in favour of the landlord regarding the jural status of the petitioner can cause prejudice, our view is that the apprehension of the learned counsel are misplaced. First of all, in the appeal, this court in civil appellate jurisdiction will be examining the correctness of the judgment and decree impugned therein with reference to the pleadings and evidence already on record. Another thing is that the RCP is yet to go for trial. It is always open to the petitioner to appraise the learned Rent Control Court while it tries the RCP of all the legal implications of the positive decree presently passed in favour of the petitioner by the civil court. We are sure that the learned Rent Control Court will be taking a final decision in the RCP on the basis of the evidence that comes on record at trial appreciating all the arguments which may be addressed WP(C). 24987/10 4 on behalf of both sides including the revision petitioner. In other words, even as we decline jurisdiction and dismiss the writ petition, we direct the learned Rent Control Court not to be influenced by Ext.P7 while taking final decision. Needless to mention that it is open to the petitioner to urge before the learned Rent Control Court that in view of the agreement for specific performance which is recognised by the civil court in O.S.No.514/2006 the petitioner is not liable to pay the arrears of rent. If such a contention is taken, the above contention will be adjudicated by the learned Rent Control Court on its merits without being influenced by Ext.P7. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb