IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND DECEMBER 2009 / 11TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 34571 of 2009(N) -------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 08/04/2009 IN I.A.34/97 IN SM.80/1982 of DISTRICT COURT, KASARAGOD EP.116/2009 of PRL.MUNSIFF, KASARAGOD (E.P.209/2009) .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. CHANDRAVATHI, W/O.LATE ANANTHA ACHARYA, MOODAMVAIL P.O., KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 2. SUMITHRA, D/O.LATE ANANTHA ACHARYA, -DO-. 3. SUNANDA, D/O.LATE ANANTHA ACHARYA, -DO-. 4. SHIVANANDA, S/O.LATE ANANTHA ACHARYA, -DO-. 5. RAVIPRAKASHA, S/O.LATE ANANTHA ACHARYA, -DO-. 6. SUMATHI, D/O.LATE ANANTHA ACHARYA,-DO-. 7. MANODATH M., S/O.LATE ANANTHA ACHARYA, -DO-. 8. THARANATHA ACHARYA, S/O.NEELAYYA, NEAR KALIKAMBA TEMPLE, MADHUR P.O., KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 9. SANTHA KUMAR (MINOR, AGED 10 YEARS). 10. PRATHISH KUMAR (MINOR, AGED 6 YEARS) 9 & 10 ARE REPRESENTED BY THEIR MOTHER 8TH PETITIONER-THARANATH ACHARYA. BY ADV. SRI.K.V.SOHAN SMT.SREEJA SOHAN.K. RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. ASMATH, W/O.LATE ABDUL AZEEZ, BAPPAITHOTTI HOUSE, UPPALA P.O., KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 2. MOHAMMAD HANEEFA, S/O.LATE ABDUL AZEEZ BAPPAITHOTTI HOUSE, UPPALA P.O., KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 3. MOHAMMAD ASLAM, S/O.LATE ABDUL AZEEZ BAPPAITHOTTI HOUSE, UPPALA P.O., KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 4. SMT.FIRDOS, D/O.LATE ABDUL AZEEZ BAPPAITHOTTI HOUSE, UPPALA P.O., KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 5. MOHAMMAD AFSAL, S/O.LATE ABDUL AZEEZ BAPPAITHOTTI HOUSE, UPPALA P.O., KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 6. MOHAMMAD NIZAM, S/O.LATE ABDUL AZEEZ BAPPAITHOTTI HOUSE, UPPALA P.O., KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 7. MOHAMMAD SAFEA, S/O.LATE ABDUL AZEEZ BAPPAITHOTTI HOUSE, UPPALA P.O., KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 8. MOHAMMAD JAVID, S/O.LATE ABDUL AZEEZ BAPPAITHOTTI HOUSE, UPPALA P.O., KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 9. GULAM MUHAMMED, S/O.MOHAMMED SHERIF, SHERIF MAISTRY, 156-158, IBRAHIM RAHMATHULLA ROAD, 11ND FLOOR, ROOM NO.11, MUMBAI-400 003. BY ADV. SMT.PRABHA R.MENON THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------ W.P.C.No. 34571 OF 2009 ------------------------ Dated this the 2nd day of December, 2009 JUDGMENT Pius C.Kuriakose, J. Under challenge in this writ petition under Article 227 is Ext.P6 order of the District Court confirming Ext.P4 order passed by the Execution Court. The petitioners are the tenants against whom order of eviction was passed concurrently by the Rent Control Court, the Appellate Authority and also by this court on the ground of requirement of reconstruction under clause (iv) of Sub Section (4) of Section 11. Ext.P1 is the judgment of this court confirming the order of eviction passed against the petitioners. The contention raised by the petitioners before the Execution Court is that after Ext.P1 judgment was passed by this court, the respondents/petitioners in the RCP lost their title over the building, which is subject matter of the Rent Control Proceedings, by virtue of Ext.P2 order passed by the Land Tribunal in S.M.No.80/1982. The learned Munsiff in Ext.P4 and the learned District Judge in Ext.P6 repelled the above contention taking the view that as courts executing the order of eviction WPC.No.34571/2009 2 finally passed by this court under the provisions of Act 2 of 1965, they do not have jurisdictional competence to examine the question of title in respect of the petition schedule building. In this writ petition several grounds have been raised assailing Ext.P6 and we have heard the submissions of Sri.K.V.Sohan, learned counsel for the writ petitioners and of Smt. Prabha R.Menon, who has lodged a caveat on behalf of the respondents. 2. Sri.Sohan submitted that it is the statutory obligation of the landlord, who evicts his tenant on the ground of requirement of reconstruction under Section 11(4) (iv), that he carries out reconstruction within the time frame set and reinducts the tenant into the reconstructed building subject to the tenant's liability to pay fair rent. In the instant case, so long as Ext.P2 order of the Land Tribunal is in currency, the respondents will not be able to discharge such statutory obligation. The situation resulting will be that the petitioners will be evicted, but the building will never be reconstructed, and the petitioners will never be reinducted. 3. Resisting the submissions of Sri.K.V.Sohan, Smt.Prabha R.Menon submitted that the building, which is subject matter of the Rent Control Proceedings, is outside the purview of Ext.P2 WPC.No.34571/2009 3 order. The Land Tribunal, according to her, is concerned if at all only with the question of paramount title over the land and not with title over the building. She drew our attention to Ext.P1 judgment and submitted that on the terms of that judgment the petitioners were allowed three months time from the date of that judgment to vacate the premises and it is not now open to them to raise a contention that even Ext.P1 has become inexecutable. 4. We have very anxiously considered the rival submissions addressed at the Bar and we have examined the various materials placed on record in this writ petition, particularly Exts.P1, P4 and P6. The subject matter of Ext.P2 proceedings before the Land Tribunal is a total extent of 65 cents of land. The building, which is subject matter of Ext.P1 judgment of this court is situated on the above land. The Authorities under the Rent Control Act, in our opinion, are not ordinarily concerned with paramount title over the building and much less over the land upon the building stands. The concern of the authorities under the Rent Control Act is as to whether the petitioner in the Rent Control Proceedings, who is seeking an order of eviction, is landlord in the sense that he is entitled to receive rent from the WPC.No.34571/2009 4 respondent therein. Several contentions were raised by the petitioners before the Rent Control Court. Ext.P1 will clearly show that a contention that there is no landlord tenant relationship between the parties was never raised before that court and before this court. That being so, we are of the opinion that the writ petitioners are not now entitled to turn back and raise a contention that the landlords i.e. petitioners in the Rent Control Proceedings, have come to loose their title by virtue of Ext.P2. Ext.P2 proceedings are primarily concerned only with the question of assignment of jenmam rights over the agricultural holding which is subject matter of those proceedings. As for the apprehension voiced by Sri.Sohan that the respondents will not be able to carry out reconstruction pursuant to the directions in Ext.P1 judgment, we are of the view that Ext.P1 is binding on the respondents and it is their obligation to ensure that the reconstruction is carried out in terms of the directions in Ext.P1. If they do not carry out reconstructions within the time stipulated under Ext.P1, the Rent Control Court has necessary powers in terms of the second proviso to Section 11 (4)(iv) to issue appropriate direction regarding the reconstruction WPC.No.34571/2009 5 of the building and to give effect to the order of eviction confirmed under Ext.P1 by passing effective orders (If it comes to that, even orders permitting the petitioners to carry out the reconstructions upon suitable terms). We do not find any warrant for invocation of the supervisory jurisdiction of this court under Article 227 of the Constitution against Ext.P6. The supervisory jurisdiction is a visitorial jurisdiction, which can not be invoked for correcting each and every wrong order that is passed by the Subordinate courts. Having regard to the settled parameters for invocation of the supervisory jurisdiction of this court under Article 227, we are of the view that there is no warrant for interfering with Exts.P4 and P6. The petition fails and the same will stand dismissed. No costs. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE dpk