IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD JUNE 2010 / 2ND ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 19057 of 2010(T) -------------------------- RCA.21/1993 of RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHROITY ,KOZHIKODE RCP.51/1990 of RENT CONTROL COURT, VADAKARA .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- V.K.GOPALAN, S/O.KANNAN, VADAKARA PATHIYEDATH, VATAKARA AMSOM, DESOM, VATAKARA TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.M.C.RATNAKARAN SMT.M.R.JAYALATHA RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. MEETHALE PARATTIYATH PREMANANDAN, THIRUVATHIRA, CHORODE AMSOM DESOM, VATAKARA TALUK-673 101. 2. MEETHALE PARATTIYATH PRESISHA ANAND, THIRUVATHIRA, CHORODE AMSOM DESOM, VATAKARA TALUK -673 101. ADV. SRI.P.B.KRISHNAN SRI.C.JAYACHANDRAN SRI.B.PARTHASARATHY SRI.S.V.BALAKRISHNA IYER. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------ W.P.(C).No.19057 OF 2010 ------------------------ Dated this the 23rd day of June, 2010 JUDGMENT Pius C.Kuriakose, J. Under challenge in this writ petition filed under Article 227 is Ext.P4 judgment of the First Appellate Court and Ext.P3 order of the Rent Control Court dismissing an application for injunction filed by the petitioner, who was the plaintiff in the suit. On this writ petition coming up for admission, as directed by us, a copy of the same was served on Sri.P.B.Krishnan and, as instructed by him, Sri.S.V.Balakrishna Iyer learned senior counsel has entered appearance before us on behalf of the contesting respondents/ landlords of the building which is subject matter of the RCP. 2. The injunction that was sought for was to restrain the landlords from levying execution of an eviction order, which had been passed by the Rent Control Court in their favour against one Kunhiraman who was non other than the brother of the petitioner Sri.Gopalan. In fact, against the eviction order passed by the Rent Control Court, the tenants had preferred an WPC.No.19057/2010 2 unsuccessful appeal and then a revision (RCR No.122/2004) to this Court. The eviction order was confirmed by this Court by dismissing RCR No.122/2004. In fact, even earlier the landlords had filed RCP NO.51/1990 seeking eviction of the building arraying Sri.Kunhiraman, the admitted tenant, and also the writ petitioner Sri.Gopalan as respondents. The landlords' allegation in that RCP was that the petitioner in the writ petition is in possession as a sub lessee. The defence of the petitioner was that he is not a sub lessee and that he is at best in permissive occupation along with his brother who was the tenant. The Rent Control Court was not impressed by the above defence. That Court actually ordered eviction upholding the landlords' case of sub lease. However, the Appellate Authority ultimately reversed the decision of the Rent Control Court, thus accepting the writ petitioner's case that his occupation of the building if at all is in his capacity as the brother of the tenant. In fact, the further contention of the present writ petitioner that he does not have any relationship with the building in question was also upheld by the Appellate Authority. 3. The present suit is instituted by the petitioner after the WPC.No.19057/2010 3 eviction order passed against his brother and legal heirs by the Rent Control Court had attained finality. The case pleaded in the suit is that subsequent to the decision in the earlier RCP, a fresh rental arrangement, under which the tenancy is given to the writ petitioner and his brother jointly, has been executed between the parties. The learned Munsiff considered the merits of the case of the writ petitioner and found that there was absolutely no material on the basis of which the writ petitioner's case that he is a tenant of the building in his own right along with his brother can be accepted. The First Appellate Court also would reappreciate the materials and concur with the decision of the Munsiff's Court. Ext.P4 is the judgment of the First Appellate Court. 4. The question that arises before us is whether Ext.P4 judgment warrants invocation of the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227. It is trite by various decisions of this Court and the Apex Court that the supervisory jurisdiction is a visitorial jurisdiction, which is to be invoked only very sparingly. The supervisory jurisdiction is not to be invoked for correcting every illegal order that is passed by a Subordinate Court. The above WPC.No.19057/2010 4 jurisdiction will be invoked only if it can be found that the order passed by the Subordinate Court is per se illegal in the sense that it offends law statutory or settled; that the same is passed without jurisdiction; that the same results in patent injustice or that the same is of such a nature that can be branded as perverse in the sense that such an order will not be authored by anybody having reasonable learning and training in law. Having gauged Ext.P4 judgment of the Appellate Authority by those parameters, we find that it is extremely difficult to invoke visitorial jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 for correcting Ext.P4. The writ petition necessarily has to fail. Hence this writ petition will stand dismissed. 5. However, considering the submission of Sri.M.C.Ratnakaran, learned counsel for the writ petitioner that it is the writ petitioner, who is actually conducting the business in question and that the income from that account is only his means of livelihood, we feel that despite the opposition from Sri.Balakrishna Iyer, some time can be granted to the writ petitioner for surrendering the premises. Accordingly, even as we dismiss the writ petition, we direct the Execution Court not to WPC.No.19057/2010 5 order and effect delivery of the building in question till 1/1/2011 subject to the following conditions; i). The writ petitioner files an affidavit before the Execution Court within ten days from today undertaking to give peaceful surrender of the building to the decree holders before that Court on or before 31/12/2010. ii). If the Execution Court notices the filing of affidavit as mentioned above on time, that Court will adjourn the E.P. to 1/1/2011. If no such affidavit is noticed, it is open to the Execution Court to proceed with the E.P. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE C.K.ABDUL REHIM , JUDGE dpk