IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 29TH JUNE 2011 / 8TH ASHADHA 1933 OP (RC).No. 2021 of 2011() -------------------------- RCP.5/2001 of MUNSIFF COURT,ALUVA .................... PETITIONERS ------------------------------- 1. K.C.BALAGOPAL, AGED 50 YEARS, S/O. K.A.C.MENON, C.GARDENS, THOTTAKKATTUKARA, ALUVA, NOW RESIDING AT NARAYANI VILAS, KMK JUNCTION, NORTH PARAVOOR. 2. K.C.SANTHOSH, AGED 42 YEARS, S/O. K.A.C.MENON, C.GARDENS, THOTTAKKATTUKARA, ALUVA. BY ADV. SRI.SABU THOZHUPPADAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. SHELMA, AGED 62 YEARS, W/O. LATE A.M.ABDUL AZEEZ, ARAMENKUTTY HOUSE, KODIKUTHUMALAYIL, ASOKAPURAM, ALUVA. 2. SHAJAHAN, AGED 32 YEARS, S/O. LATE A.M.ABDUL AZEEZ, ARAMENKUTTY HOUSE, KODIKUTHUMALAYIL, ASOKAPURAM, ALUVA. SRI.KURIAN ANOTNY EDASSERY THIS OP (RENT CONTROL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JJ. ------------------------ O.P.(RC).No.2021 OF 2011 ------------------------ Dated this the 28th day of June, 2011 JUDGMENT Pius C.Kuriakose, J. Under challenge in this original petition filed by the landlords under Article 227 is Ext.P4 order passed by the learned Rent Control Court, Aluva. Ext.P4 has been passed by the Rent Control Court pursuant to an order of remand (Ext.P3) passed by this court. Ext.P4 is challenged under Article 227 contending that Ext.P4 has been passed in violation of the terms of Ext.P3 remand order. 2. We have gone through Ext.P4. We have gauged Ext.P4 by the para meters that are applicable to the exercise of the visitorial jurisdiction under Article 227. We are not convinced that Ext.P4 is an order which is liable to be interfered with under Article 227. It is not every wrong order passed by the Subordinate judicial authority that is liable to be corrected under Article 227. Only such orders, which are per se illegal in the sense that the same has been passed without jurisdiction, the OPRC.No.2021/2011 2 same offends clear provision of law either statutory or settled, or results in patent injustice or are perverse in the sense that such orders will not be authored by anybody having reasonable learning and training in law that can be corrected under Article 227. Gauging Ext.P4 by the yardsticks applicable to the exercise of visitorial jurisdiction under Article 227 it cannot be said that Ext.P4 is liable to be visited under Article 227. The original petition will stand dismissed. But this judgment will not stand in the way of Ext.P4 being challenged in accordance with law under the provision of the Act 2 of 1965 by the petitioner. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE dpk