IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.HARILAL MONDAY, THE 19TH DECEMBER 2011 / 28TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 OP (RC).No. 4164 of 2011(O) --------------------------- RCP.24/2010 of MUNSIFF COURT, TIRUR .................... PETITIONER ------------------------------ A.K.SAJID, S/O.HAMZA HAJI, CITY COLLECTION, MASJID THOUHID COMPLEX, TIRUR(PO)PIN-676101 TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DIST BY ADV. SRI.JAMSHEED HAFIZ RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. KERALA NADUVATHUL MUJAHIDHEEN REP.BY GENERAL SECRETARY, MUJAHID CENTRE NEW BLOCK ,5TH FLOOR C.D.TOWER, BIPPAS ROAD, ARYADATH PALAM P.O., KOZHIKODE DIST 2. KERALA NADVATHUL MUJAHIDHEEN TIRUR BRANCH, REP.BY ITS PRESIDENT MASJIDUL THOUHID, TIRUR P.O.,PIN-676101 TIRUR TALUK,MALAPPURAM DIST BY ADV. SRI.K.M.FIROZ THIS OP (RENT CONTROL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/12/2011, ALONG WITH OPRC NO.4167/2011 AND CONNECTED CASES THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & K.HARILAL, JJ. ------------------------ O.P.(RC) NOs.4164,4167, & 4172 OF 2011 ------------------------ Dated this the 19th day of December, 2011 JUDGMENT Pius C.Kuriakose, J. Under challenge in these original petitions filed under Article 227 is Ext.P3 order passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Manjeri. Ext.P3 order is a common order passed by the learned Appellate Authority in three original petitions filed by the petitioners/tenants for transfer of R.C.P. Nos.22/2010, 23/2010 and 24/2010 filed by the respondents against them invoking the ground of arrears of rent. Transfer was sought on the ground that present presiding officer in the court, where these RCPs were instituted, had taken a view against the petitioners that the respondents are the landlords of the buildings in question. In other words, the ground is that as in an identical issue as to whether there exists landlord-tenant relationship between the landlords and the tenants, a view had been taken by the very same presiding officer while he was functioning as OPRC No. 4164/2011 & others 2 an Additional Munsiff, Kozhikode in favour of the respondents. It is likely that the learned Rent Control Court will take the same view and hold that the plea of denial of title raised by the petitioners is not bona fide. 2. Sri.Jamsheed Hafiz learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the learned Appellate Authority has passed Ext.P3 order even without calling for the remarks of the learned Rent Control Court. Mr.Jamsheed Hafiz submitted that no prejudice will be caused to the respondents by transferring these rent control petitions over to the Rent control Court , Parappanangadi a place which very near to Tirur where these Rent Control Petitions presently stands posted. 3. Sri.K.M.Firoz, who had lodged a caveat on behalf of respondents in anticipation of these original petitions, however opposed the request for transfer. According to him, the ground of arrears of rent is the only ground which is invoked in all these rent control petitions. If the rent control court decides the plea of denial of title raised by the petitioners against them they are not without a remedy. They can always challenge the decision of the Rent Control Court before the Appellate Authority. In OPRC No. 4164/2011 & others 3 these cases personal bias has not been attributed by the petitioners against the presiding officer concerned, so submitted Mr.Firoz. 4. We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions addressed at the Bar. As pointed out by Mr.Firoz the petitioners had not attributed any personal bias against the presiding officer. This is clear to us from the copy of the original petitions for transfer which was placed before us . The records relating to the suit decided by the very same presiding officer when he was Munsiff at Kozhikode has not been placed on record. We are sure that the issue, as to whether the denial of title raised by the petitioners in these cases under the proviso to sub section (1) of Section 11 is bona fide, will be decided by the Rent Control Court after holding due enquiries as contemplated by the proviso to section 11 (1). Even if the Rent Control Court decides the above issue against the petitioners, the petitioners are not without remedy. 5. There is yet another reason why we are not persuaded to interfere with Ext.P3. The jurisdiction, which is invoked by the petitioners is visitorial jurisdiction of this court under Article OPRC No. 4164/2011 & others 4 227. Visitorial jurisdiction is invoked only very sparingly. Having regard to the well settled para meters for invocation of the visitorial jurisdiction under Article 226, it is very clear to us that no ground is made out for invocation of such jurisdiction. We decline the jurisdiction invoked and dismiss these original petitions. 6. However, we make it clear that if the presiding officer, who is presently trying RCP Nos. 22/2010, 23/2010 and 24/2010 is having any personal embarrassment in the matter, this judgment by ourselves confirming Ext.P3 will not stand in the way of his addressing the learned Appellate Authority in that regard. If such a contingency occurs, the Appellate Authority shall pass appropriate orders on the transfer request. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE K.HARILAL, JUDGE. dpk OPRC No. 4164/2011 & others 5