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 18TH OCTOBER 2011 / 26TH ASWINA 1933 OP (RC).No. 3271 of 2011(O) --------------------------- PETITIONERS (S): -------------------- 1. CHACKO GEORGE (DIED), REPRESENTED BY HIS LEGAL HEIRS 1. GRACY GEORGE, W/O THE LATE CHAKO GEORGE, RESIDING AT MONSI NIVAS, ERAMCHERI, MEENADU VILLAGE, CHATHANNOOR. 2. MONCY GEORGE S/O THE LATE CHACKO GEORGE, RESIDING AT MONSI NIVAS, ERAMCHERI,MEENADU VILLAGE CHATHANNOOR. 3. ANCY MATHEW S/O THE LATE CHACKO GEORGE, RESIDING AT MONSI NIVAS, ERAMCHERI, MEENADU VILLAGE, CHATHANNOOR. BY ADV. SRI.M.K.CHANDRA MOHANDAS RESPONDENT(S): --------------- SATHEESH NAIR, S/O P.GOPINATHAN NAIR, BUSINESS, RESIDING AT MANOR H AND C COMPUND, KOCHUPILAMOODU, KOLLAM - 691 001. ADV. SMT.K.G.BINDHU THIS OP (RENT CONTROL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/10/2011, ALONG WITH OPRC NO.3317/2011 AND OTHERS THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------ O.P.(RC).Nos. 3271,3316,3317,3318, 3319,3320 & 3321 OF 2011 ------------------------ Dated this the 18th day of October, 2011 JUDGMENT Pius C.Kuriakose, J. The petitioners, who are tenants occupying different portions of a larger building belonging to the respondent/landlord have, in these original petitioners, invoke the visitorial jurisdiction of this court under Article 227 seeking the following reliefs; i). Issue a direction to the Rent Control Court, Paravur to reissue fresh typed corrected order of common order dated 31/01/2011 in R.C.O.P. Nos.2,3,5,8,10,11,12 and 13 of 2000 on the files of the Rent Control Court, Paravur, as contemplated under Chapter VII of the Civil Rules of Practice. ii). Issue a direction to the Rent Control O.P.R.C..Nos.3271/2011 & others 2 Appellate Authority, Kollam to take into files the appeal preferred by the petitioners against Ext.P2 common order dated 31/01/2011 in R.C.O.P. Nos. 2,3,58,10,11,12 and 13 of 2000 on the files of the Rent Control Court, Paravur as one which is filed without delay. 2. According to the petitioners, the certified copies of the common order dated 31/1/2011 passed by the Rent Control Court, Paravur in R.C.(O.P.) Nos. 2,3,4,5,8,10,11,12 and 13/2010 required corrections and they applied for correction. But, on receiving the corrected copies, it was noticed that even the corrections carried out have not been properly authenticated. According to them, for want of copies with corrections duly authenticated, they have not been able to prefer appeals against the eviction orders passed against them under the common order dated 31/1/2011. In two connected matters covered by the common order, the tenants have preferred appeals and as the entire lower court records were called by the Appellate Authority in connection with those appeals, the office of the Rent Control Court is unable to issue copies with corrections duly O.P.R.C..Nos.3271/2011 & others 3 authenticated. 3. Having considered the submissions addressed before us by Sri.M.K.Chandramohan Das, the learned counsel for the petitioners in all these cases and Smt.K.G.Bindu learned counsel for the respondent, we are convinced that there is some force in the submission of Smt.Bindu that the petitioners are trying to protract the proceedings for eviction by resorting to delaying tactics such as raising technical contentions as to the regularity of the corrected certified copies issued to them. Even if everything what the petitioners have stated regarding the infirmities in the corrected copies issued to them were correct, then also we feel that those infirmities are trivial and can be ignored by the Rent Control Appellate Authority especially as the Appellate Authority has already admitted two appeals on the basis of the certified copies of the very same impugned common order at the instance of two tenants. We are convinced that no case is made out by the petitioners for invocation of the supervisory jurisdiction of this court under Article 227. The supervisory jurisdiction is to be invoked very sparingly. 4. We decline the reliefs sought for and direct the O.P.R.C..Nos.3271/2011 & others 4 petitioners to prefer appeals to the Rent Control Appellate Authority if they are aggrieved by the common order passed by the Rent Control Court on 31/1/2011 utilising the corrected certified copies issued to them on the basis of their applications. It is open to the petitioners to file appeals before Tuesday (25/10/2011) accompanied by application for condondation of delay calculating the extent of delay with reference to the corrected copies issued to them. We direct the learned Appellate Authority to entertain those appeals as well as the application for condonation of the delay. We are sure that the Appellate Authority will not adhere to unnecessary technicalities and will facilitate early disposal of all the appeals on merits. At any rate, the Appellate Authority should ensure that all the appeals including the two appeals, which are already on file, are disposed of within one month from today. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE C.K.ABDUL REHIM,JUDGE. dpk O.P.R.C..Nos.3271/2011 & others 5