IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 6152 of 2010(T)
1. CHANDRAVATHI & OTHERS
... Petitioner
Vs
1. ASMATH & OTHERS
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.P.I.DAVIS
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.K.ABDUL REHIM
Dated :01/03/2010
O R D E R
PIUS C. KURIAKOSE &
C. K. ABDUL REHIM, JJ.
------------------------------------------------
W. P. C. No.6152 of 2010
------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 1st day of March, 2010
JUDGMENT
Pius C. Kuriakose, J
In this Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India, the petitioners who are
tenants challenge Ext.P5 order of the District
Court dismissing a revision which they had filed
under section 14 of Act 2 of 1965 against Ext.P4
order passed by the Principal Munsiff’s Court in
execution of Ext.P1 order of eviction which was
passed by a Division Bench of this Court to which
one among us [PCK(J)] was party. Exts.P4 and P5
are challenged on various grounds raised in this
Writ Petition and Sri.P.I.Davis, the learned counsel
W. P. C. No.6152 of 2010 -2-
for the Writ Petitioners would draw our attention
to the last sentence in paragraph 3 of Ext.P3
which is judgment in R.P.1221/09 filed by these
petitioners themselves seeking review of
judgment in Writ Petition No.34571/09. According
to Mr.Davis it was relying solely on the submission
made by the learned counsel for the respondents
that the respondents have obtained exemption
orders from the Government regarding the
proposed re-construction that we passed Ext.P3
dismissing the RP. Mr.Davis would draw our
attention to Ext.P6 replies received by one of the
petitioners to certain questions which he had put
to the local authority and submit that the
submission made on behalf of the landlord in
Ext.P3 that the landlord has secured exemption
W. P. C. No.6152 of 2010 -3-
orders was an absolutely incorrect submission.
2. As requested by us, Mr.Davis placed
before us the questions which were submitted
under the Right to Information Act to the Public
Information Officer of the local authority. Question
No.C is as to whether any building permit was
granted to the landlords and if so, the number and
date of the permit. Question ‘C’ is answered in
Ext.P6 by answer No.C which is as follows:-
“No. No permission has been
granted from this office to
Smt.Asmath and her children for
construction of shop building in the
above said land.”
3. Mr.Davis would submit that the building
rules have been made applicable to the local area
in question and therefore, the carrying out of the
reconstruction proposed in the Rent Control
Proceedings has become impossible considering
W. P. C. No.6152 of 2010 -4-
the smallness of the plot shown in the plan Ext.A1
submitted to the Rent Control Court. It will not be
possible for these landlords to put up
constructions in the adjacent plot also in view of
the order passed by the Land Tribunal in S.M.
Proceedings No.80/82. Though it is true that the
landlords have preferred an appeal under section
102 of the Land Reforms Act against the order of
the Land Tribunal, the chances are more that the
Appellate Tribunal will confirm the order of the
Land Tribunal.
4. All the submissions of Mr.Davis were
resisted by Smt.Prabha R. Menon, the learned
counsel for the respondents/landlords. Drawing
our attention to Ext.P1 Smt.Prabha submitted that
the tenants were aware at the time when this
W. P. C. No.6152 of 2010 -5-
court passed Ext.P1, of the commencement of the
building rules in the Panchayath in question.
Nevertheless, the tenants agreed to suffer the
order of eviction under section 11(4)(iv) provided
they are given the right of re-induction as
contemplated by the third proviso to clause 4 of
sub section 4 of section 11. Ext.P1 having attained
finality, it is not open to the petitioners to raise
contentions like the present one before this Court
indirectly. It was on the basis of Ext.A1 that the
authorities under the Rent Control statute passed
the order of eviction which was confirmed in
Ext.P1. Under Ext.P1, it is the obligation of the
respondents to carry out the reconstruction and if
for any reason the respondents do not carry out
the reconstruction the respondents will be bound
W. P. C. No.6152 of 2010 -6-
to suffer any order which the Rent Control Court
and the higher authorities under the statute may
pass in terms of the third proviso to section 11(4)
(iv). The land will also be there and if it comes to
that the authorities under the statutes are
empowered even to permit the evicted tenants to
put up temporary construction. Ext.P3 was
challenged before the Supreme Court also. But
the Supreme Court did not grant special leave for
challenging Ext.P3. Thus, Ext.P3 has also attained
finality at the hands of the Supreme Court. In
view of the judgment of the Supreme Court
confirming Ext.P3 also, the petitioners are not
entitled to raise the contentions presently raised.
5. We have very anxiously considered the
rival submissions addressed at the Bar. It is the
W. P. C. No.6152 of 2010 -7-
supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article
227 which has been invoked by the petitioners.
Supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 is a
visitorial jurisdiction. It is not invoked for
correcting each and every wrong order that is
passed by a Subordinate Court. Visitorial
jurisdiction is invoked only when it can be stated
that the order passed by the Subordinate Court is
per se illegal in the sense that it offends a direct
statutory provision or a binding judicial precedent.
It can be invoked also when it can be stated that
it results in failure of justice or gross injustice to
one of the parties to the litigation. It may also be
possible to invoke supervisory jurisdiction when it
is possible to say that the order challenged is so
wholly unreasonable in the sense that the same
W. P. C. No.6152 of 2010 -8-
can be branded as a perverse one so that such an
order will not be authored by anybody having
reasonable learning and training in law. Gauging
the orders challenged in these proceedings by the
parametres which are applicable for the invocation
of the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227,
we are unable to say that there is warrant in this
case for invocation of that jurisdiction on Ext.P3
which is confirmed by the Supreme Court also. It
is an order of eviction under section 11(4)(iv)
which has been passed in favour of the
respondents. On the terms of Ext.P1 and the
orders of the Rent Control Court and the Appellate
Authority which were confirmed under Ext.P1, the
respondents are bound to carry out the re-
construction within the time limit. If they do not
W. P. C. No.6152 of 2010 -9-
carry out reconstruction and re-induct the
petitioner into the building, the Rent Control Court
will have every power to ensure that the
petitioners are re-inducted at least to the site on
which the buildings stood. If it comes to that, that
court will have the power to permit the petitioners
to put up constructions subject to reasonable
terms which may be fixed. The challenge against
Exts.P4 and P5 has necessarily to fail and we
dismiss this Writ Petition.
PIUS C. KURIAKOSE
JUDGE
C. K. ABDUL REHIM
JUDGE
kns/-
