O.P.(RC) No.61 of 2023

1 O.P.(RC) No.61 of 2023 ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN** **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 3[RD] DAY OF MARCH 2023 / 12TH PHALGUNA, 1944 O.P.(RC)NO.61 OF 2023** **AGAINST THE PROCEEDINGS IN E.P.NO.15 OF 2023 IN R.C.(OP) NO.31 OF 2018 OF THE RENT CONTROL COURT (PRINCIPAL** **MUNSIFF), KOLLAM** ## **PETITIONER:** **A.S. SAJEEV AGED 35 YEARS, S/O SHARAFUDHEEN, MILANO MENS BOITIQUE READY MADE GARMENT SHOP, NO.VP 8-610,611, PALLIMUKKU, KOLLAM, PIN – 691010. BY ADVS. MANSOOR ALI BIJITH S.KHAN** **RESPONDENT:** **ABDULLA AGED 42 YEARS, S/O AHAMMED, MINNARAM, VADAKKEVILA CHERRY, VADAKKEVILA VILLAGE, KOLLAM, PIN – 691010.** **THIS OP (RENT CONTROL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03.03.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** 2 O.P.(RC) No.61 of 2023 ## **JUDGMENT** ## **Anil K. Narendran, J.** The petitioner, who is the respondent-tenant-judgment debtor in E.P.No.15 of 2023 in R.C.(OP) No.31 of 2018 on the file of the Principal Munsiff Court, Kollam, has filed this Original Petition invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, seeking an order directing the said court not to evict the petitioner from the petition schedule shop rooms in E.P.No.15 of 2023 in R.C.(OP) No.31 of 2018, till consideration of Ext.P8 execution application (CF No.1914 of 2023) filed in E.P.No.15 of 2023 in R.C.(OP) No.31 of 2018, which is one filed for adjourning E.P.No.15 of 2023 in R.C.(OP) No.31 of 2018, which is listed before the Principal Munsiff Court, Kollam on 03.03.2023, to another date. ## 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitionertenant-judgment debtor. 3. The respondent herein-landlord filed R.C.(OP) No.31 of 2018 before the Rent Control Court (Principal Munsiff, Kollam), under Sections 11(2)(b) and 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 seeking eviction of the petitioner-tenant from the petition scheduled 3 O.P.(RC) No.61 of 2023 shop rooms. The Rent Control Court granted an order of eviction in R.C.(OP) No.31 of 2018, i.e., Ext.P1 order dated 29.02.2020, under Sections 11(2)(b) and 11(3) of the Act and the tenant was directed to put the landlord in possession of the petition schedule shop rooms, within 45 days and to pay costs. The tenant filed R.C.(Appeal) No.6 of 2021 before the Rent Control Appellate Authority (Addl. District Judge-IV), Kollam, under Section 18(1)(b) of the Act. That appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution by Ext.P4 order dated 09.12.2022. The landlord filed in E.P.No.15 of 2023 in R.C. (OP) No.31 of 2018 before the Principal Munsiff Court, Kollam, i.e., Ext.P6 execution petition, in which the tenant received Ext.P7 notice dated 25.01.2023, requiring him to appear before the execution court on 03.03.2023. The tenant filed Ext.P8 execution application (CF No.1914 of 2023) before the Principal Munsiff Court, Kollam for adjourning E.P.No.15 of 2023 in R.C.(OP) No.31 of 2018, which is listed on 03.03.2023, to another date. 4. 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 4 O.P.(RC) No.61 of 2023 throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction. ## 5. 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. 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 5 O.P.(RC) No.61 of 2023 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. 7. 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 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. 8. In the instant case, the landlord filed in E.P.No.15 of 2023 in R.C.(OP) No.31 of 2018 before the Principal Munsiff Court, Kollam, for executing the order of eviction 6 O.P.(RC) No.61 of 2023 granted by the Rent Control Court, Kollam in R.C.(OP) No.31 of 2018, under Sections 11(2)(b) and 11(3) of the Act. R.C.(Appeal) No.6 of 2021 filed by the tenant before the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Kollam, under Section 18(1)(b) of the Act, was dismissed for non-prosecution, on 09.12.2022. The petitioner, who filed Ext.P8 execution application (CF No.1914 of 2023) before the Principal Munsiff Court, Kollam for adjourning E.P.No.15 of 2023 in R.C.(OP) No.31 of 2018, which is listed on 03.03.2023, to another date, cannot invoke the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, by filing this original petition on 02.03.2023, seeking an order directing the said court not to evict the petitioner from the petition schedule shop rooms in E.P.No.15 of 2023 in R.C. (OP) No.31 of 2018, till consideration of Ext.P8 execution application. This original petition is nothing but an abuse of the process of court, which is liable to be dismissed imposing costs. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner-tenant seeks permission to withdraw this Original Petition. Based on the aforesaid submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Original Petition is dismissed as 7 O.P.(RC) No.61 of 2023 withdrawn. Sd/- **ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE** **Sd/P.G. AJITHKUMAR, JUDGE** dkr 8 O.P.(RC) No.61 of 2023 ## **APPENDIX OF OP (RC) 61/2023** ## **PETITIONER EXHIBITS** **EXHIBIT P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN RC.OP 31/2018 OF PRINCIPAL RENT CONTROL COURT KOLLAM DATED 29.02.2020** **EXHIBIT P2** - **THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN OS. 510/2016 BEFORE THE PRINCIPLE MUNSIFF COURT, KOLLAM DATED 27.01.2020** **EXHIBITP3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE RENT AGREEMENT DATED 30.07.2020** - **EXHIBIT P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN RCF ( APPEAL) NO. 06/2021 DATED 09.12.2022** - **EXHIBIT P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE RENT AGREEMENT DATED 30.06.2021** - **EXHIBIT P6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF EP 15/2023 IN RC.OP 31/2018 FILED BEFORE THE PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF COURT, KOLLAM DATED NILL** - **EXHIBIT P7 THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 25.01.2023** - **EXHIBIT P8 THE TRUE COPY OF THE E.A (CF NO1914/2023) BEFORE THE PRINCIPLE MUNSIFF COURT DATED 28.02.2023**