IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.HARILAL FRIDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF DECEMBER 2011/2ND POUSHA 1933 OPRC.No. 4291 of 2011 (O) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S) -------------- 1 SAJI MATHEW, S/O.P.K. MATHEW PULIMATTATHIL HOUSE P.O.ADICHIRA KOTTAYAM. BY ADV.SRI.JOHN JOSEPH VETTIKAD SRI.C.JOSEPH JOHNY RESPONDENT(S) ----------------- 1 K.A. ASHARAF, S/O. ABDUL KADER KIZHAKKETHIL HOUSE P.O.CHENGALAM CHANGALAM VILLAGE KOTTAYAM-686 585. THIS OP (RENT CONTROL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23-12-2011 , THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & K. HARILAL, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ O. P. (RC) No.4291 of 2011 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 23rd day of December, 2011 JUDGMENT Pius C. Kuriakose, J Under challenge in this Original Petition filed by the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution is Ext.P5 order passed by the Rent Control Court, Kottayam in I.A.2602/11 in RC(OP).32/10. The RC(OP) was filed by the respondent/landlord seeking eviction of the petitioner in various grounds. In the RC(OP), a copy of which is produced as Ext.P1, the landlord has stated that the jural status of the petitioner is that of a licensee as per the document executed. But the landlord has moved the Rent Control Court to evict the petitioner accepting the petitioner's contention in a suit that his status is that of a tenant. I.A.2602/11 was filed by the petitioner after the evidence on both sides in the RCP was recorded in full and the RCP was posted for final hearing seeking to amend the statement of O. P. (RC) No.4291 of 2011 -2- objections for raising a specific contention that the status of the revision petitioner is not that of a tenant but is that of a licensee only. The learned Rent Control Court under Ext.P5 has noticed that it was accepting the petitioner's case in O.S.164/10 that the jural status in the building is that of a tenant and not that of a licensee that the landlord filed the RCP for eviction. Therefore, according to the learned Rent Control Court, the application filed at the fag end of the trial cannot be entertained. 2. In this O.P. various grounds are raised and Sri.John Joseph Vettikad the learned counsel for the petitioner addressed submissions before us based on those grounds. We have considered the averments in the O.P. as well as the documents produced along with the same. The only question which we are called upon to decide is whether Ext.P5 order of the Rent Control Court is liable to be visited in this Court's jurisdiction under Article 227. The jurisdiction under Article 227 is visitorial in nature and will not be invoked for correcting each and every wrong order that is passed by a O. P. (RC) No.4291 of 2011 -3- Subordinate Judicial Authority. Visitorial jurisdiction is to be invoked only in exceptional circumstances and the same will be invoked only when the order passed by the Subordinate Judicial Authority is per se illegal in the sense that the same offends clear provisions of law statutory or settled, the same is rendered without jurisdiction especially inherent jurisdiction or when the order can be branded as a perverse one in the sense that such an order will not be authored by anybody having reasonable learning and training in law. When we gauge Ext.P5 by the parametres which are applicable to the exercise of visitorial jurisdiction, it is clear to our mind that Ext.P5 is not liable to be visited under the visitorial jurisdiction. 3. Here, the contention of the petitioner is that he is a licensee and therefore, the Rent Control Petition is not maintainable in law. According to Sri.John Joseph, evidence is already let in to show that the status of the petitioner is that of a licensee only and not that of a tenant. In Ext.P2 statement of objections it has been contended in the very O. P. (RC) No.4291 of 2011 -4- beginning that the RCP is not legally maintainable. It is open to the petitioner in spite of Ext.P5 to argue on the basis of the evidence already available on record that the RCP is not maintainable. Ext.P5 need not deter the Rent Control Court from taking proper decision on such argument. 4. With the above observations we decline jurisdiction and dismiss the O.P. Sd/- PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE Sd/- K. HARILAL JUDGE kns/- //True Copy// P. A. TO JUDGE