IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM SATURDAY, THE 20TH AUGUST 2011 / 29TH SRAVANA 1933 OP (RC).No. 2758 of 2011(O) --------------------------- RCP.15/2010 of MUNSIFF COURT, THALIPARAMBA .................... PETITIONER/RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- KADEEJABI A.P, D/O.SAID ALI, KUNHIKOYAMMA THANGAL, MADAYI AMSOM PUTHIYNGADI DESOM, KANNUR DISTRICT 673 021. BY ADV. SRI.BLAZE K.JOSE SMT.B.BINDU SMT.N.DEEPA RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONERS: --------------- 1. ACHUMMANTAKATH CHALILEPURAYIL KUNHALEEMA AGED 70 YEARS, D/O IBRAHIM KUTTY HAJI MADAYI AMSOM, POUTHIYANGADI DESOM, KANNUR DISTRICT 673 021. 2. PUZHAKKAL MUHAMMED KUNHI HAJI S/O.KUNHABDULLA, MADAYI AMSOM PUTHIYANGADI DESOM, KANNUR DISTRICT 673 021. THIS OP (RENT CONTROL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------ O.P.(RC).No. 2758 OF 2011 ------------------------ Dated this the 20th day of August, 2011 JUDGMENT Pius C.Kuriakose, J. Under challenge in this original petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution is the summary order of eviction passed by the Rent Control Court, Taliparamba in RCP No.15/2010 on 8/4/2011 and further order Ext.P8 passed by the same Rent Control Court dismissing I.A. No.1106/2011 which was filed seeking review of the summary order of eviction. 2. Various grounds have been raised in this original petition and Sri.Blaze K.Jose learned counsel for the petitioner addressed appealing submissions before us based on those grounds. We do find some merit in the submission of the learned counsel that the summary order of eviction dated 8/4/2011 suffers from procedural infirmities in as much as even breathing time for showing cause against the summary order is not granted and also in as much as the same was not preceded by an order directing payment of admitted arrears of rent and granting statutory O.P.(RC).No.2758/2011 2 minimum period for deposit as provided by proviso to Section 12(2). But, at the same time, we are not inclined to invoke the supervisory jurisdiction of this court under Article 227 as the para meters for invocation of the above jurisdiction, which is visitorial in nature, are very narrow. May be the order passed by the learned Rent Control Court is wrong, but we are not prepared to say that the order is vitiated to the extent of justifying invocation of the visitorial jurisdiction. The petitioner will have to challenge the order of eviction by way of regular appeal under Section 18 of the Act. We relegate the petitioner to that remedy. However, considering the merit noticed in the grounds, we direct the Execution Court to keep in abeyance proceedings for execution for a period of six weeks from today. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE C.K.ABDUL REHIM,JUDGE. dpk