IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 3RD MARCH 2011 / 12TH PHALGUNA 1932 OP (RC).No. 881 of 2011(O) -------------------------- RCP.6/2010 of MUNSIFF COURT,CHENGANNUR .................... PETITIONER : -------------------- ABDUL RAHEEM, S/O. ABOOBACKER, AGED 48 YEARS, NOW RESIDING AT KUTTIVELIL HOUSE, PANUR MURI, THRIKUNNAPUZHA VILLAGE, KARTHIKAPPALLY TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.T.MADHU SRI.B.K.RAJAGOPAL RESPONDENT(S): --------------- SIRAJI, S/O. ABOOBACKER, AGED 56 YEARS, ROSE HOUSE, PANNUR MURI, THRIKUNNAPUZHA VILLAGE, KARTHIKAPPALLY TALUK, REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER NASAR, AGED 38 YEARS, S/O. SADDIK, KUMABALATHU HOUSE, THRIKUNNAPUZHA VILLAGE KARTHIKAPPALLY TALUK PIN 690516. THIS OP (RENT CONTROL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JJ. ------------------------ O.P.R.C.No. 881 OF 2011 ------------------------ Dated this the 3rd day of March, 2011 JUDGMENT Pius C.Kuriakose, J. Under challenge in this original petition filed by the tenant under Article 227 of the Constitution is Ex.P5 order passed by the Rent Control Court, Changannur. Ext.P5 order is passed by that court on Ext.P3 commission application. The commission application was filed by the tenant seeking inspection and report on as many as 16 points. Under the impugned order, the learned Rent Control Court has found that only three of the points among the 16 are relevant for the adjudication of the issue whether order of eviction under Section 11 (3) is liable to be passed against the tenant. 2. Having gone through the commission application and the impugned order, it is clear to our mind that there is no infirmity about Ext.P5 which appeals to the visitorial jurisdiction of this court under Article 227. It will be noticed immediately that jurisdiction under Article 227 is a visitorial jurisdiction which O.P.R.C.No.881/2011 2 is invoked very sparingly. Unless it is possible to say that Ext.P5 is passed without jurisdiction, is per se illegal, perverse in the sense that such an order will not be authored by anybody having reasonable learning and training in law, we will not be justified in invoking the above jurisdiction on Ext.P5. As we are unable to say that there is warrant for invocation of the visitorial jurisdiction, the original petition will stand dismissed in limine. However, if the final order passed by the learned Rent Control Court comes to be against the petitioner/tenant, the petitioner is permitted to raise the various grounds raised in this original petition as grounds in the prospective appeal . We are sure that the Appellate Authority will take a decision on the various grounds raised in the prospective appeal keeping in mind the relevancy of the aspects sought to be reported by the commissioner in Ext.P3. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE dpk