IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN FRIDAY, THE 6TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 15TH KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 31653 of 2009(B) -------------------------------- RCP.9/2008 of MUNSIFF COURT, CHITTUR PETITIONER(S): ----------------- MOHAN, S/O.AYYAPPAN, VELLANTHARA, KIZHAKKETHARA AMSOM, CITTUR TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.H.BADARUDDIN SMT.B.SHAMEERA SMT.M.SHAZIA SULTHANA RESPONDENT(S): ------------------- NARAYANANKUTTY, S/O.UNNIKRISHNAN, GAYATHRI, KOLLENGODE, CHITTUR TALUK. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/11/2009 A/W W.P.C. NO.31702/09 AND CON. CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ W. P. C. Nos.31653, 31658, 31668, 31702 & 31747 of 2009 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 6th day of November, 2009 JUDGMENT Pius C. Kuriakose, J Under challenge in all these Writ Petitions filed by the tenants in occupation of different buildings belonging to the very same landlord/respondent, are orders of the Rent Control Court dismissing applications for issuance of commission filed by the petitioners. The ground under sub section 3 of section 11 of Act 2 of 1965 is the substantive ground on which eviction is sought against these writ petitioners. All the writ petitioners have claimed the protection of the second proviso to sub section 3 of section 11. Though the burden to prove that they satisfy the two W. P. C. No.31653/09 & con. cases -2- ingredients of the second proviso is on the tenants, the landlord himself took out a commission and the Commissioner filed report stating inter alia that some vacant buildings are available in the locality. The contention of the petitioners is that those buildings are not actually available on rent and also that those buildings are not suitable for their purposes. It is mainly to interact with the owners of those buildings and to file a report as to whether those buildings are actually available on rent that the petitioners filed the instant applications for commission. The learned Rent Control Court dismissed the applications stating that some of the aspects sought to be reported by the Commissioner are already reported by the Commissioner already appointed or are admitted by the landlord and that it is not necessary to issue a W. P. C. No.31653/09 & con. cases -3- commission for interacting with the landlords and filing a report as to whether they are actually available for lease. It is open to the petitioners to cite those landlords as witnesses and elicit evidence from them regarding the availability or otherwise of those buildings on lease. 2. We have heard the submissions of Sri. H.Badruddin, the learned counsel for the petitioners and those of Sri.G.Hariharan, the learned counsel for the respondent. Even though Sri.Badruddin addressed very strenuously on the various grounds raised in the memorandum of the writ petitions (all those submissions were resisted by Sri.Hariharan), we do not find any warrant for invocation of the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for correcting the orders W. P. C. No.31653/09 & con. cases -4- impugned. Supervisory jurisdiction is a visitorial jurisdiction which will be invoked only very sparingly. The above jurisdiction is not invoked for correcting each and every wrong order passed by a Subordinate Court. That jurisdiction will be invoked only when they can be said that the order passed by the Subordinate Court is per se illegal in the sense that it violates a clear provision of law statutory or settled; that the same is without jurisdiction; that the same results in injustice or causes legal prejudice to the party or when it can be stated that the order is so wholly unreasonable and can be described as a perverse order in the sense that such an order will not be authored by anybody having reasonable learning and training in law. When we gauge the impugned orders by those parametres, we are of the view that there is W. P. C. No.31653/09 & con. cases -5- no warrant for invocation of the supervisory jurisdiction. As rightly stated by the learned Rent Control Court, some of the aspects are already covered by the earlier Commissioner's Report and it is always open to the petitioners to cite the owners of the buildings reported to be vacant by the earlier Commissioner as their witnesses at the trial of the RCP. Sri.Badruddin submitted that the owners of those buildings are unwilling to come as witnesses. According to us, if they do not turn up as witnesses in spite of summons by the court, the court has got every power to issue coercive process against them for compelling their attendance. 3. The result is that the above Writ Petitions will stand dismissed. However, we direct the Rent Control Court to adjourn the trial of the cases by at least W. P. C. No.31653/09 & con. cases -6- seven days from 10th instant (the day they presently stand posted for trial in the special list) so as to enable the petitioners to take steps for examining the owners of the buildings referred to in their petitions. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE K. SURENDRA MOHAN JUDGE kns/-