OP (RC) No.232 of 2023

``` IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM ``` ``` PRESENT ``` ``` THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K. NARENDRAN ``` ``` & ``` ``` THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G. GIRISH ``` ``` THURSDAY, THE 4[TH] DAY OF JANUARY 2024 / 14TH POUSHA, 1945 OP (RC) NO.232 OF 2023 ``` ``` AGAINST THE ORDER IN RCP 6 of 2021 OF PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF COURT, THRISSUR ``` ``` PETITIONER: ``` ``` PAUL THOMAS, AGED 62 YEARS, S/O. THOMAS, MUTTICHUKKARAN HOUSE, MISSION QUARTERS, CHEMBUKAV VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT, NOW RESIDING AT 17A, JAIN CHARING CROSS, KK ROAD, KALOOR, ERNAKULAM, PIN – 682 017 BY ADVS. R.PADMARAJ JOMY GEORGE SAJEEVAN V.T. CHITRA N. DAS RONA ANN SIBY ASWIN ASHOK V. ``` ``` RESPONDENT: ``` ``` MANGALODAYAM PVT. LTD. ROUND SOUTH, THRISSUR REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR A.C. CHUMMAR. S/O CHAKKU, AKKARA HOUSE, OLLUR, THRISSUR TALUK., PIN – 680 001 BY ADVS. MEENA A VINOD RAVINDRANATH(K/001479/1999) M.R.MINI(K/000153/1996) K.C.KIRAN(K/621/2006) M.DEVESH(K/1253/2012) ANISH ANTONY ANATHAZHATH(K/000106/2019) THAREEQ ANVER K.(K/000942/2018) NIVEDHITHA PREM.V(K/001822/2023) T.KRISHNANUNNI (SR.)(K/280/1973) ``` ``` THIS OP (RENT CONTROL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04.01.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` 2 OP(RC)No.232 of 2023 ## **JUDGMENT** ## **Anil K. Narendran, J.** The petitioner, who is the respondent-tenant in RCP No.6 of 2021 on the file of the Rent Control Court, Thrissur has filed this Original Petition, invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the order dated 20.12.2023 in E.P. No.1191 of 2023 of the Principal Munsiff Court, Thrissur in RCP No.6 of 2021 to effect delivery of the petition schedule building on 03.01.2024 and to direct the said court to ensure that delivery notice is served properly on the petitioner. The petitioner has also sought for an order to grant atleast six months’ time to handover the key of the petition schedule building to the respondent-landlord, after vacating the same. 2. On 26.12.2023 when this original petition came up for consideration before the Vacation Bench, this Court passed the following order: “Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the order of the Rent Control Court, Thrissur in R.C.P. No.6 of 2021 has become final and no appeal had been filed against the order. It is submitted that the petitioner only requires some time to vacate from the premises. It is submitted that the petitioner is conducting a textile business in the premises in question and he only 3 OP(RC)No.232 of 2023 needs a reasonable time to dispose of his stock and hand over vacant possession of the building. 2. Though the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is requesting for six months’ time to vacate the premises, we are of the opinion that six months’ time cannot be granted to the petitioner. However, we are of the opinion that some reasonable time can be given to the petitioner to vacate the premises. Therefore, issue notice by speed post to the respondent. The petitioner shall file an affidavit by 03.01.2024 before this Court undertaking to vacate the premises within a reasonable time (not later than 31.03.2024), which will be required for disposing of the stock of textile items kept in the premises. In order to consider the request for time to vacate the premises, list this matter for consideration on 04.01.2024. Status quo as on today shall be maintained till 04.01.2024.” 3. Today when this matter is taken up for consideration, the respondent-landlord enters appearance through counsel. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner-tenant and also the learned counsel for the respondent-landlord. 5. The learned counsel for the respondent-landlord has made available for the perusal of this Court a copy of order dated 16.06.2022 of the Rent Control Court, Thrissur in I.A. No.1 of 2022 in RCP No.6 of 2021, which is one issued under Section 4 OP(RC)No.232 of 2023 12(1) and (2) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, whereby the tenant was directed to deposit the admitted arrears amounting to Rs.1,29,34,300/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of default till the date of petition, within a period of four weeks from that date. 6. On 11.08.2022, when the RCP came up for consideration, there was no representation for the petitionertenant. The Rent control Court passed Ext.P3 order dated 11.08.2022, whereby the tenant was directed to put the landlord in possession of the petition schedule building. The petitioner has not chosen to challenge that order in appropriate proceedings. 7. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the respondent-landlord would point out that the total arrears of rent as on December 2023 comes to Rs.1,47,70,620/-. The said amount together with 6% interest would come to Rs.2,24,36,258.85/-. The learned counsel would submit that since the tenant has not chosen to make any substantial payment towards the admitted arrears of rent, the landlord is not in a position to grant a breathing time to the tenant to vacate the petition schedule building. 5 OP(RC)No.232 of 2023 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner-tenant would submit that the tenant is not in a position to pay even a portion of the admitted arrears of rent. 9. Article 227 of the Constitution of India deals with power of superintendence over all courts by the High Court. Under clause (1) of Article 227 of the Constitution, every High Court shall have superintendence over all courts and tribunals throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction. ## 10. In **Shalini Shyam Shetty v. Rajendra Shankar** **Patil [(2010) 8 SCC 329]** the Apex Court, while analysing the scope and ambit of the power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution, held that the object of superintendence, both administrative and judicial, is to maintain efficiency, smooth and orderly functioning of the entire machinery of justice in such a way as it does not bring it into any disrepute. The power of interference under Article 227 is to be kept to the minimum to ensure that the wheel of justice does not come to a halt and the fountain of justice remains pure and unpolluted in order to maintain public confidence in the functioning of the tribunals and courts subordinate to the High Court. 6 OP(RC)No.232 of 2023 11. 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 quasi-judicial 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 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. 12. In **K.V.S. Ram v. Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation [(2015) 12 SCC 39]** the Apex Court held that, in exercise of the power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court can interfere with the order of the court or tribunal only when there 7 OP(RC)No.232 of 2023 has been a patent perversity in the orders of the tribunal and courts subordinate to it or where there has been gross and manifest failure of justice or the basic principles of natural justice have been flouted. 13. 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 the decision of the lower court or tribunal is in direct conflict with settled principles of law. 14. In view of the law laid down in the decisions referred to supra, the High Court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India cannot sit in appeal over the findings recorded by a lower court or tribunal. The 8 OP(RC)No.232 of 2023 supervisory jurisdiction cannot be exercised to correct all errors of the order or judgment of a lower court or tribunal, acting within the limits of its jurisdiction. The correctional jurisdiction under Article 227 can be exercised only in a case where the order or judgment of a lower court or tribunal has been passed in grave dereliction of duty or in flagrant abuse of fundamental principles of law or justice. Therefore, no interference under Article 227 is called for, unless the High Court finds that the lower court or tribunal has committed manifest error, or the reasoning is palpably perverse or patently unreasonable, or the decision of the lower court or tribunal is in direct conflict with settled principles of law or where there has been gross and manifest failure of justice or the basic principles of natural justice have been flouted. 15. The petitioner has not chosen to challenge Ext.P3 order dated 11.08.2022 of the Rent Control Court in appellate proceedings. The admitted arrears of rent as per the order dated 16.06.2022 of the Rent Control Court, passed under Sections 12(1) and (2) of the Act, was more than Rs.1 Crore. Ext.P3 order passed by the Rent Control Court under Section 12(3) of the Act stands unchallenged. In view of the law laid down by a Division Bench of this Court in **Greenix Ventures** 9 OP(RC)No.232 of 2023 **Pvt. Ltd (M/s.) v. P.M.Salim [2022 (4) KLJ 311]** the Rent Control Court or the Appellate Authority cannot enlarge the time limit originally granted for payment of admitted arrears of rent in terms of the order under Sections 12(1) and (2) of the Act. In such circumstances, we find no reason to invoke the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, since it cannot be said that the Principal Munsiff Court committed a manifest error in proceeding with the delivery of the petition schedule building. The original petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed; however, without prejudice to the right of the respondent to raise legal contentions, if any, at the execution stage. Sd/- ## **ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE** Sd/- ## **G. GIRISH, JUDGE** ded 10 OP(RC)No.232 of 2023 ## **`APPENDIX OF OP (RC) 232/2023`** ``` PETITIONER EXHIBITS ``` - **`Exhibit P1 A PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING THE TENANTED BUILDING WHEREIN THE MEGA DISCOUNT SALE HAS ANNOUNCED I`** - **`Exhibit P2 THE TRADING, PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT STATEMENT FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR ENDING MARCH 31 S, 2023 OF THE BUSINESS OF THE PETITIONER BY NAME M/S. TONY BROTHERS`** - **`Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 11.08.2022 IN RCP6/2021 OF THE RENT CONTROL COURT, THRISSUR`** - **`Exhibit P4 THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN E.P 1191/2023 OF THE PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF COURT, THRISSUR TAKEN DOWN FROM E-COURTS WEBSITE`** - **`Exhibit P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE E.P NO. 1191/2023 OF THE PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF COURT, THRISSUR IN RCP 6/2021`**