IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 19TH SEPTEMBER 2011 / 28TH BHADRA 1933 OP (RC).No. 2997 of 2011(O) --------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 06/09/2011 IN IA.4368/2011 IN RCA.98/2008 of VI ADDL.DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONER/RESPONDENT ----------------------------------------- MUHAMMED YUSUF, S/O.SHAHUL HAMEED, AGED 58 YEARS, DOOR NO.23/2434 J, "GARMENTS AND CHAPPALS", PALLURUTHY VELI, KOCHI-6. BY ADV. SRI.BIJU ABRAHAM RESPONDENT(S): APPELLANT ------------------------ VICHITHRA KUMAR, S/O.SUKUMARAN, AGED 61 YEARS, C.C.23/243-B, PALAPPARAMBIL, PALLURUTHY VELI, KOCHI-6. THIS OP (RENT CONTROL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/09/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------ O.P.(RC).No. 2997 OF 2011 ------------------------ Dated this the 19th day of September, 2011 JUDGMENT Pius C.Kuriakose, J. Under challenge in this original petition filed under Article 227 is Ext.P6 order passed by the 6th Additional Rent Control Appellate Authority, Ernakulam. Under Ext.P6 order, the learned Additional Appellate Authority has dismissed I.A. No.4368/2011, an application by which the petitioner/tenant sought to amend the statement of objections which he had filed in the rent control petition for the purpose of incorporating a pleading as to an event which had happened subsequent to Ext.P3 remand order passed by this Court. Under Ext.P3, this court had remanded the RCA to the Appellate Authority giving liberty to the parties to adduce fresh evidence to decide on two points. One is whether the room, which was referred to in the order, had fallen vacant during the pendency of the rent control petition and the second is whether the above room was sufficient for the conduct of proposed computer centre by the landlord's daughter. The OPRC.No. 2997/2011 2 petitioner submits that after the remand order yet another room belonging to the landlord had fallen vacant and that was an event which had a bearing on the decision to be taken in the case. It was to bring that subsequent event to the notice of the Appellate Authority, that I.A. No.4368/2011 was filed. I.A. No.4368/2011 is dismissed under Ext.P6 taking the view that the same will amount to enlarging the scope of the remand order passed by this court. Another reason stated by the learned Appellate Authority is that the appellant had no argument before the High Court in Ext.P3 case that his pleadings are incomplete and hence allowing the application for amendment of pleadings will be beyond the scope of the remand order. Various grounds are raised challenging Ext.P6 order. 2. It is submitted by Sri.Biju Abraham learned counsel for the petitioner that the event, which brought to be introduced in the pleadings, was an event which had happened after Ext.P3 remand order was passed. The Appellate Authority therefore is not justified in taking the view that no argument was raised before the High Court in Ext.P3 case that the pleadings are insufficient . As the event, which is sought to be introduced OPRC.No. 2997/2011 3 through amendment application, was not in contemplation of anybody at the time when Ext.P3 order was passed, the learned Appellate Authority ought not have dismissed the amendment application on the reason that the same will be beyond the scope of the remand order. 3. The submissions of Mr.Biju Abraham cannot be said to be totally without force. But, the question, with which we are concerned in this original petition which is filed invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this court under Article 227, is whether Ext.P6 order warrants visit under this jurisdiction. According to us,even if Ext.P6 order is not fully correct, then also the same is not liable to be visited under Article 227. The jurisdiction under Article 227 is visitorial in nature and will be invoked only when the order passed by the Subordinate Judicial Authority can be said to be per se illegal in the sense that the same is passed without jurisdiction, the same violates law statutory or settled or the same is one which can be branded as a perverse order in the sense that such an order will not be authored by anybody having reasonable learning and training in law. Gauging Ext.P6 by those para matters, it is clear to our OPRC.No. 2997/2011 4 mind that Ext.P6 is not liable to be visited under the supervisory jurisdiction of this court under article 227. 4. We dismiss the original petition. However, we make it clear that if the decision in the Rent Control Appeal comes to be against the petitioner and if it becomes necessary for the petitioner to challenge that decision before this court under Section 20, the petitioner will have the liberty of urging before this court in that prospective revision as an additional ground that I.A. No.4368/2011 should have been allowed by the Appellate Authority. With these observations, the original petition is dismissed in limine. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE C.K.ABDUL REHIM,JUDGE. dpk OPRC.No. 2997/2011 5