KURIAKOSE @ KURIACHAN v. SUSAMMA SCARIA

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN** **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR** **WEDNESDAY, THE 31[ST] DAY OF MAY 2023 / 10TH JYAISHTA, 1945 OP (RC) NO. 103 OF 2023** **AGAINST THE ORDER IN I.A.NO.12 OF 2023 IN R.C.P.NO.23 OF 2020 ON THE FILE OF RENT CONTROL COURT, CHERTHALA DATED 23.05.2023** ## **PETITIONER/PETITIONER/ORIGINAL RESPONDENT:** **KURIAKOSE @ KURIACHAN** **AGED 67 YEARS** **S/O.THOMAS, MANALEL HOUSE, CMC 2, CHERTHALA NORTH VILLAGE, CHERTHALA TALUK, CHERTHALA P.O., ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 688524** **BY ADVS. J.OM PRAKASH C.X.ANTONY BENEDICT EMMANUAL SANJU** ## **RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/ORIGINAL PETITIONER:** **SUSAMMA SCARIA** **AGED 46 YEARS** **W/O. SCARIA, THOTTYAM, VASANTHANAPPALLY P.O., THRISSUR, PIN - 680303** **THIS OP (RENT CONTROL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31.05.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** 2 O.P.(RC) No.103 of 2023 ## **J U D G M E N T** ## P.G.Ajithkumar, J. The petitioner is the respondent tenant in R.C.P.No.23 of 2020 on the file of the Rent Control Court, Cherthala. Petitioner is aggrieved of the order dated 23.05.2023 dismissing I.A. No.12 of 2023 filed by him in the said Rent Control Petition for reviewing the order passed on 17.03.2023 by the Rent Control Court under Rule 14A(5)(a) of Order VI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. 3. Respondent is the landlord. She filed R.C.P No.23 of 2020 seeking an order evicting the petitioner from the petition schedule building under Section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965. The need urged by the respondent is that she wants to start a textile business. The petitioner filed I.A.No.10 of 2023 to stay the proceedings in R.C.P No.23 of 2020 saying that the address furnished by the respondent in the petition was wrong. The Rent Control Court accordingly stayed the further proceedings. The 3 O.P.(RC) No.103 of 2023 respondent then filed a memo dated 15.03.2023 furnishing her correct address. The Rent Control Court accepting the plea that the address thus furnished was her correct address, revoked the order of stay. The petitioner filed I.A. No.12 of 2023 under Order XLII Rule 9 of the Code seeking to review the said order by contending that the order of stay should not have been revoked without there having a duly submitted application. 4. The respondent had filed an objection in I.A. No.12 of 2023. After hearing both sides, the Rent Control Court dismissed I.A.No.12 of 2023 holding that the address originally furnished was the residence of her deceased husband from whom she obtained the petition schedule building. The Rent Control Court holding that furnishing that address did not amount to a purposeful act of furnishing wrong registered address rejected the plea for review. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that going by the provisions of sub-rule 6 of Rule 14A of Order VI of the Code, only on submitting an application, the Court gets jurisdiction to set aside the order 4 O.P.(RC) No.103 of 2023 of stay. Here the respondent filed a memo alone and there was total lack of materials in order for the Court to record satisfaction that there was sufficient justification for furnishing incorrect address. The learned counsel would submit that when an act is directed to be done in a particular manner, the same shall be done in that manner itself. The Rent Control Court simply on filing a memo by the respondent furnishing her correct address, invoked the provisions of sub-rule 7 of Rule 14A of Order VI of the Code and set aside the order of stay, which is incorrect. 6. Section 23 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act does not make the provisions of Order VI of the Code specifically applicable to the proceedings before the Rent Control Court and therefore the contention of the petitioner that the provisions of Rule 14A of Order VI of the Code should have been applied strictly to the proceedings before the Rent Control Court cannot be appreciated. It is true that sub-rule 6 of Rule 14A of Order VI insists on submitting an application seeking to set aside the order of stay and on satisfying itself alone, the Court can set aside the order of stay. It being a 5 O.P.(RC) No.103 of 2023 matter of procedure, the Court has discretion even to act upon an oral application. 7. In **Jai Jai Ram Manohar Lal v. National** **Building Material Supply, Gurgaon [AIR 1969 SC 1267]** the question was, can an amendment to substitute the name of a non-existent party happened to be shown by mistake in the cause title of the suit be substituted with actual name. The observation of the Apex Court, while answering the question in the affirmative, is a guide in the instant case. It was held, "Rules of procedure are intended to be a handmaid to the administration of justice. A party cannot be refused just relief merely because of some mistake, negligence, inadvertence or even infraction of the rules of procedure." 8. Therefore, on the technical reason of non filing of an application alone the respondent could not be denied the right to prosecute the Rent Control Petition. The Rent Control Court after referring to the law laid down in **Thomas Joseph** v. **Catholic Syrian Bank** , **[1998(1) KLT 986]** held that the Court could well revoke the order of stay once it is convinced 6 ## O.P.(RC) No.103 of 2023 that furnishing of an incorrect address is not purposeful. Such a finding is now sought to be interfered with under the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 9. In **Jai Singh v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi [(2010) 9 SCC 385]** , while considering the nature and scope of the powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the Apex Court held that, undoubtedly the High Court, under Article 227 of the Constitution, has the jurisdiction to ensure that all subordinate courts, as well as statutory or quasijudicial tribunals exercise the powers vested in them, within the bounds of their authority. The High Court has the power and the jurisdiction to ensure that they act in accordance with the well established principles of law. The High Court is vested with the powers of superintendence and/or judicial revision, even in matters where no revision or appeal lies to the High Court. The jurisdiction under this Article is, in some ways, wider than the power and jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is, however, well to remember the well known adage that greater the power, greater the care and caution in exercise thereof. The High Court is, therefore, 7 O.P.(RC) No.103 of 2023 expected to exercise such wide powers with great care, caution and circumspection. The exercise of jurisdiction must be within the well recognised constraints. It cannot be exercised like a 'bull in a china shop', to correct all errors of the judgment of a court or tribunal, acting within the limits of its jurisdiction. This correctional jurisdiction can be exercised in cases where orders have been passed in grave dereliction of duty or in flagrant abuse of fundamental principles of law or justice. 10. In **Sobhana Nair K.N. v. Shaji S.G. Nair [2016 (1) KHC 1]** a Division Bench of this Court held that, the law is well settled by a catena of decisions of the Apex Court that in proceedings under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, this Court cannot sit in appeal over the findings recorded by the lower court or tribunal and the jurisdiction of this Court is only supervisory in nature and not that of an appellate court. Therefore, no interference under Article 227 of the Constitution is called for, unless this Court finds that the lower court or tribunal has committed manifest error, or the reasoning is palpably perverse or patently unreasonable, or 8 O.P.(RC) No.103 of 2023 ## the decision of the lower court or tribunal is in direct conflict with settled principles of law. In the light of the law laid down in the decisions referred, we find no reason to interfere with the impugned order. This original petition is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- **ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE** Sd/- **P.G. AJITHKUMAR, JUDGE** PV 9 O.P.(RC) No.103 of 2023 ## **APPENDIX OF OP (RC) 103/2023** **PETITIONER EXHIBITS** - **Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF AMENDED R.C.P. NO.23/2020 DATED 22.02.2023 OF RENT CONTROL COURT, CHERTHALA** - **Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF OBJECTION FILED TO THE EXHIBIT-P1 AMENDED R.C.P. NO.23/2020 DATED 27.02.2023 ON THE FILE OF RENT CONTROL COURT, CHERTHALA.** - **Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF I.A. NO. 10/2023 IN R.C.P. 20/2020 DATED 03.03.2023 FILED BY THE PETITIONER ON THE FILE OF RENT CONTROL COURT, CHERTHALA** - **Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION IN EXHIBITP3 I.A. 10.2023 IN R.C.P. NO. 23/2020 DATED NIL ON THE FILE OF RENT CONTROL COURT, CHERTHALA** - **Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 14.03.2023 IN EXHIBIT-P3 I.A. NO. 10/.2023 IN R.C.P. NO. 23/2020 ON THE FILE OF RENT CONTROL COURT, CHERTHALA** - **Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF MEMO DATED 15.03.2023 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT IN R.C.P. NO. 23/2020 ON THE FILE OF RENT CONTROL COURT, CHERTHALA** - **Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF ORDER IN R.C.P. NO. 23/2020 DATED 16.03.2020 OF THE RENT CONTROL COURT, CHERTHALA** - **Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 17.03.2023 IN R.C.P. NO. 23/2020 OF THE RENT CONTROL COURT, CHERTHALA** - **Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE REVIEW PETITION I.A.** 10 ## O.P.(RC) No.103 of 2023 **NO. 12/2023 IN R.C.P. 23/2020 DATED 22.03.2023 FILED BY THE PETITIONER ON THE FILE OF RENT CONTROL COURT, CHERTHALA** **Exhibit P10 TRUE COPY OF OBJECTION IN I.A. NO. 12/2023 IN R.C.P. NO. 23/2020 DATED 29.03.2023 ON THE FILE OF RENT CONTROL COURT, CHERTHALA** **Exhibit P11** **TRUE COPY OF ORDER IN I.A. NO. 12/2023 IN R.C.P. NO. 23/2020 DATED 23.05.2023 OF THE RENT CONTROL COURT, CHERTHALA**