IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.HARILAL THURSDAY, THE 22ND DECEMBER 2011 / 1ST POUSHA 1933 OP (RC).No. 4268 of 2011(O) --------------------------- RCP.143/2010 of III ADDL.M.C.EKM (RENT CONTROL) .................... PETITIONER (S): -------------------- MR.THOMAS BENSON ALIAS BENNY AGED 54 YEARS, S/O. THOMAS "CASSETE WORLD" RAILWAY STATION ROAD ERNAKULAM SOUTH, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.M.V.MATHEW SRI.LOUIS JOHN PEREKATT ADV.BIJU MARTIN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- P.SHAHINA AGED 41 YEARS, W/O. NAZEER, 43/2172,SRM ROAD, ERNAKULAM ROAD, KOCHI 682018. THIS OP (RENT CONTROL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & K.HARILAL, JJ. ------------------------ O.P.(RC) NO. 4268 OF 2011 ------------------------ Dated this the 22nd day of December, 2011 JUDGMENT Pius C.Kuriakose, J. On behalf of the learned counsel for the petitioner, an adjournment is sought for. We are not inclined to grant adjournment as it is the visitorial jurisdiction of this court under Article 227 which is invoked in this original petition. 2. Ext.P7 is the order under challenge. Under Ext.P7, the learned Rent Control Court has allowed an application for amendment of the Rent Control Petition. Ext.P5 is the amendment application and Ext.P6 is the statement of objections filed by the petitioner to the same. Under Ext.P7, the contentions raised in Ext.P6 have been repelled and Ext.P5 has been allowed. 3. Having gone through Ext.P7, we are in agreement with the learned Rent Control Court that no prejudice will be OPRC. 4268 /2011 2 occasioned to the revision petitioner on account of allowing Ext.P5. Visitorial jurisdiction of this court is an exceptional jurisdiction which will be invoked only very sparingly. Visitorial jurisdiction will not be invoked for correcting each and every wrong order that is passed by Subordinate Judicial Authority. Visitorial jurisdiction will be invoked only when it can be said that the order passed by the Subordinate Judicial Authority is per se, illegal in the sense that the same offends a clear provision of law either statutory or settled or that the same has been passed without jurisdiction or that the order is one that can be branded as a perverse order in the sense that such an order will not be authored by anybody having reasonable training and learning in law. Having gauged Ext.P7 by those para meters, it is very clear to our mind that there is no warrant for invocation of the supervisory jurisdiction on Ext.P7. We decline the jurisdiction and dismiss the original petition. However, we make it clear that in case the final order of the Rent Control Court comes to be against the petitioner and it becomes necessary for the petitioner to prefer an appeal under Section 18 before the Rent Control Appellate Authority, the OPRC. 4268 /2011 3 petitioner will have the liberty of urging as grounds in that appeal the grounds raised in this original petition. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE K.HARILAL, JUDGE. dpk OPRC. 4268 /2011 4