IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 27TH JANUARY 2011 / 7TH MAGHA 1932 OP (RC).No. 359 of 2011(O) -------------------------- (E.P. NO.97/2010 IN RCP NO.25/09 IN MUNSIFF COURT, KANNUR) PETITIONER ------------------------------ K.RAJAN, S/O. SURENDRAN, T.T.N.-574, SAVANKANDI LANE, THAYATHERU, KANNUR-2. BY ADV. SRI.M.V.AMARESAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- LISSA P.J., W/O. A.J.MATHEW, AGED 47 YEARS, ANIYARA HOUSE, MUNDAYAD AMSOM DESOM, KANNUR TALUK, KANNUR, PIN-671 001. THIS OP (RENT CONTROL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JJ. ------------------------ O.P.(R.C).No. 359 OF 2011 ------------------------ Dated this the 27th day of January, 2011 JUDGMENT Pius C.Kuriakose, J. The tenant is the petitioner in this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution. Under challenge in this petition is the order passed by the Rent Control Court on Ext.P3(a) application. Ext.P3(a) application was an application for amendment of the Rent Control Petition so as to incorporate certain details for the purpose of correctly identifying the petition schedule building. Ext.P1 is an eviction order passed by the Rent Control Court against the petitioner under Section 11(2)(b). Ext.P1 is an ex parte order passed against the petitioner. For reasons best known to him, the petitioner/tenant is yet to move the Rent Control Court for getting Ext.P1 set aside. Ext.P1, being an order under Section 11 (2)(b), is always liable to be vacated by the Rent Control Court itself under Section 11 (2)(c). If the time for making deposit is over, the Rent Control Court can be O.P.RC.No.359/2011 2 moved for enlargement of time. 2. The question to be considered by us is whether the order passed on Ext.P3(a) application can be said to be vitiated to the extent of warranting invocation of the supervisory jurisdiction. According to us, the above question can be answered only against the petitioner. True, the above order was passed by the Rent Control Court without affording an opportunity to the petitioner to file objections to Ext.P3(a). What the learned Rent Control Court has stated is that since Ext.P3(a) is passed on the basis of an earlier order passed in I.A. No.3275/2010, there is no scope for filing the counter by the petitioner. The petitioner is yet to produce before us copy of the order in I.A. No.3275/2010. In all probability, that order is passed with notice to the petitioner. Whatever that be , we do not find any warrant for invocation of the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 in this case. The Original Petition will stand dismissed in limine. However, we direct the Execution Court to keep in proceedings for delivery for a period of one month from today. It is open to the petitioner to do the needful to have the eviction order Ext.P1 O.P.RC.No.359/2011 3 set aside in accordance with law in the meanwhile. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE dpk