ORDER : 1. A challenge has been laid by the petitioner-tenant (hereinafter ‘the tenant') to the judgment dated 15-12-2016 passed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal Ajmer in Appeal No.44/2016 affirming the judgment dated 27-7-2016 passed by the Rent Tribunal Ajmer dismissing the tenant's application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC for setting aside the ex-parte proceeding vide order dated 18-5-2010 and the judgment dated 14-7-2010, whereby the tenant was directed to hand over the vacant possession of the tenanted premises to the landlord within three months from the date of the judgment and other directions as to revised rent and mesne profits issued. 2. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order 27-7-2016 passed by the Tribunal as affirmed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal vide order dated 15-12-2016. 3. The Tribunal considering the facts and circumstances of the case for initiating ex-parte proceedings against the tenant concluded that the notice sent for 18-5-2010 to the tenant through registered post was received with the marking “refused to”. Prior thereto the wife of the tenant had refused to accept the notice sent on 2-3-2010. The Tribunal held that the tenant's denial as to receipt of notices and even the copy of its judgment sent by registered post was bald and the tenant had despite opportunities failed to produce the postman in the court to prove his allegation of collusion of the landlord with the postman. In the circumstances presumption of receipt of notices sent through registered post was drawn under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897. The Apex Court in the case of Jagdish Singh Vs. Natthu Singh ( AIR 1992 SC 1604 ) has held that where notice sent by registered post presumption of service has to be drawn. In the circumstances obtaining and state of law, the Tribunal vide order dated 27-7-2016 dismissed the application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC. Appeal there against having failed before the Appellate Rent Tribunal under its judgment dated 15-12- 2016, this petition has been filed. 4. In the case of Surya Dev Rai Vs. Ram Chander Rai [ (2003)6 SCC 675 ] the Apex Court has held that the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is to be exercised for keeping the subordinate courts within the bounds of their jurisdiction, or its exercise in a manner not permitted by law leading to manifest injustice. Ram Chander Rai [ (2003)6 SCC 675 ] the Apex Court has held that the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is to be exercised for keeping the subordinate courts within the bounds of their jurisdiction, or its exercise in a manner not permitted by law leading to manifest injustice. The Apex Court has cautioned against the altering of the supervisory jurisdiction to one of appeal where re-appreciation or re-evaluation of evidence or correction of errors of fact are rectified. The legal position was summed up by the Apex Court in para 38 as under:- “38. Such like matters frequently arise before the High Courts. We sum up our conclusions in a nutshell, even at the risk of repetition and state the same as hereunder:- (1) Amendment by Act No.46 of 1999 with effect from 01.07.2002 in Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure cannot and does not affect in any manner the jurisdiction of the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. (2) Interlocutory orders, passed by the courts subordinate to the High Court, against which remedy of revision has been excluded by the CPC Amendment Act No. 46 of 1999 are nevertheless open to challenge in, and continue to be subject to, certiorari and supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court. (3) Certiorari, under Article 226 of the Constitution, is issued for correcting gross errors of jurisdiction, i.e., when a subordinate court is found to have acted (i) without jurisdiction - by assuming jurisdiction where there exists none, or (ii) in excess of its jurisdiction â\200\223 by overstepping or crossing the limits of jurisdiction, or (iii) acting in flagrant disregard of law or the rules of procedure or acting in violation of principles of natural justice where there is no procedure specified, and thereby occasioning failure of justice. (4) Supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution is exercised for keeping the subordinate courts within the bounds of their jurisdiction. When the subordinate Court has assumed a jurisdiction which it does not have or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction which it does have or the jurisdiction though available is being exercised by the Court in a manner not permitted by law and failure of justice or grave injustice has http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 13 of 14 occasioned thereby, the High Court may step in to exercise its supervisory jurisdiction. (5) Be it a writ of certiorari or the exercise of supervisory jurisdiction, none is available to correct mere errors of fact or of law unless the following requirements are satisfied : (i) the error is manifest and apparent on the face of the proceedings such as when it is based on clear ignorance or utter disregard of the provisions of law, and (iii) a grave injustice or gross failure of justice has occasioned thereby. (6) A patent error is an error which is self-evident, i.e., which can be perceived or demonstrated without involving into any lengthy or complicated argument or a long-drawn process of reasoning. Where two inferences are reasonably possible and the subordinate court has chosen to take one view the error cannot be called gross or patent. (7) The power to issue a writ of certiorari and the supervisory jurisdiction are to be exercised sparingly and only in appropriate cases where the judicial conscience of the High Court dictates it to act lest a gross failure of justice or grave injustice should occasion. Care, caution and circumspection need to be exercised, when any of the above said two jurisdictions is sought to be invoked during the pendency of any suit or proceedings in a subordinate court and the error though calling for correction is yet capable of being corrected at the conclusion of the proceedings in an appeal or revision preferred there against and entertaining a petition invoking certiorari or supervisory jurisdiction of High Court would obstruct the smooth flow and/or early disposal of the suit or proceedings. The High Court may feel inclined to intervene where the error is such, as, if not corrected at that very moment, may become incapable of correction at a later stage and refusal to intervene would result in travesty of justice or where such refusal itself would result in prolonging of the lis. (8) The High Court in exercise of certiorari or supervisory jurisdiction will not covert itself into a Court of Appeal and indulge in re-appreciation or evaluation of evidence or correct errors in drawing inferences or correct errors of mere formal or technical character. (8) The High Court in exercise of certiorari or supervisory jurisdiction will not covert itself into a Court of Appeal and indulge in re-appreciation or evaluation of evidence or correct errors in drawing inferences or correct errors of mere formal or technical character. (9) In practice, the parameters for exercising jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari and those calling for exercise of supervisory jurisdiction are almost similar and the width of jurisdiction exercised by the High Courts in India unlike English courts has almost obliterated the distinction between the two jurisdictions. While exercising jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari the High Court may annul or set aside the act, order or proceedings of the subordinate courts but cannot substitute its own decision in place thereof. In exercise of supervisory jurisdiction the High Court may not only give suitable directions so as to guide the subordinate court as to the manner in which it would act or proceed thereafter or afresh, the High Court may in appropriate cases itself make an order in supersession or substitution of the order of the subordinate court as the court should have made in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 5. With the aforesaid limited scope of the jurisdiction of this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, I find that neither the Tribunal nor the Appellate Tribunal have committed any error of jurisdiction. Further no case of perversity or patent illegality is made out. The tenant has failed to satisfy the Tribunal/Appellate Tribunal of sufficient cause for not appearing before the Tribunal in the course of the pendency of the eviction petition. Contrarily from the material/evidence before the Tribunal it was established in law that service has duly been made on the tenant despite which he failed to contest the eviction petition. Order 9 Rule 13 CPC is a salutary provision to overcome situations where for reason of justice if a defendant is found to have sufficient cause for not appearing and contesting a case despite service, in such situations he is not made to suffer an ex-parte decree although passed after due process. Order 9 Rule 13 CPC is not a weapon of strategy to delay fruition of the legal rights of a plaintiff. Nor an instrument to reward lethargy. For this reason the burden on the applicant to establish sufficient cause for non appearance is heavy. Order 9 Rule 13 CPC is not a weapon of strategy to delay fruition of the legal rights of a plaintiff. Nor an instrument to reward lethargy. For this reason the burden on the applicant to establish sufficient cause for non appearance is heavy. It cannot be discharged on the mere askance as the petitioner-tenant sought to do before the Tribunal/Appellate Tribunal. I therefore find no force in this petition. Dismissed.