IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI TUESDAY, THE 4TH AUGUST 2009 / 13TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 20727 of 2009(I) -------------------------- RCRP.1/2005 of ADDL.DISTRICT COURT-I,MAVELIKKARA EA.12/1994 of MUNSIFF COURT,KAYAMKULAM (EA 21/95,EP 76/91) .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. GRACYKUTTY MATHEWKUTTY (DIED) SUDHA GEORGE,VAINTHAMANGALATHU VEEDU, THEKKEMANKUZHI MURI,BHARANICKAVU VILLAGE. 2. PUSHPA THOMAS,VAINTHAMANGALATHU VEEDU, THEKKEMANKUZHI MURI,BHARANICKAVU VILLAGE. 3. SHEEBA JOHN,VAINTHAMANGALATHU VEEDU, THEKKEMANKUZHI MURI,BHARANICKAVU VILLAGE. 4. SHIBU MATHEWKUTTY,VAINTHAMANGALATHU VEEDU,THEKKEMANKUZHI MURI,BHARANICKAVU VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI RESPONDENT(S): --------------- RASHEEDA RAHIM, GREEN HOUSE,PERUNGALA MURI, KAYAMKULAM VILLAGE. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ. ------------------------ W.P.(C)No.20727 of 2009 ------------------------ Dated this the 4th day of August, 2009 JUDGMENT Pius C.Kuriakose, J. Even though the learned counsel for the petitioners addressed us extensively and very persuasively, we are unable to find any justification for invoking this court's supervisory jurisdiction for correcting Ext.P2 order, which has been passed by the learned District Judge in confirmation of Ext.P1 order. The respondent tenant was evicted from the petition schedule building on the ground of requirement of reconstruction (Section 11 (4) (iv)). Even after elapse of 14 years after the respondent tenant was dispossessed, the petitioners landlords did not carried out reconstruction. The respondent moved the court under the third proviso to sub section (4) of Section 11. It appears that by that time some sort of consensus was arrived at between the parties. It was understood that instead of pucca reconstruction, renovation as envisaged by sub section (5) of Section 11 can be WPC.No.20727/2009 2 carried out. The claim of the petitioners is that they have carried out renovation. The above claim is resisted by the respondent tenant, who contends that no satisfactory repair or renovation has been carried out. Ext.P2 order of the learned District Judge reveals that Ext.C1 commission report supports the complaint of the tenant that even after the renovation works said to have been done by the petitioners, the building in question is not rendered even habitable. Whatever that be, in this jurisdiction under Article 227 our concern is to consider whether Ext.P2 order is liable to be corrected under the Supervisory jurisdiction. Supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 is a visitorial jurisdiction which will be exercised only very sparingly. Parameters for invocation of the visitorial jurisdiction are well known. Visitorial jurisdiction is invoked when it is seen that the order passed by the Subordinate Court has been passed without jurisdiction or that the same is per se illegal in the sense that it violates clear provision of law. Visitorial jurisdiction can also be invoked when it can be said that the impugned order results in patent injustice or failure of justice. Guaging Ext.P2, which is a final order passed by the District Judge by those para meters, we WPC.No.20727/2009 3 do not find any warrant for invocation of the visitorial jurisdiction. The claim of the petitioners is that the building has been renovated in terms of eviction order passed under Sub Section (5) of Section 11. Any eviction order passed under sub section (5) of Section 11 is, in our opinion, only an order of temporary eviction. On the terms of eviction order passed under sub section (5) of Section 11, the tenant is not even evicted from the building in his possession, but he is only directed to keep away from the building for a short period so as to permit the landlord to enter and carry out renovation within a time fixed by the court. In the instant case, since the claim of the petitioners is that they have carried out the renovation as required under sub section (5) of Section 11, they have no right to resist the prayer of the tenant that the building redelivered to him. According to us, the impugned order directing redelivery of the petition schedule building to the respondent tenant does not suffer any infirmity. Whether the building has been renovated satisfactorily is an issue which would be considered by the rent control court later. WPC.No.20727/2009 4 The impugned order directing redelivery has to be implemented forthwith. The writ petition is dismissed. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE dpk