JUDGMENT : ANIL K. NARENDRAN, J. 1. Since common issue is raised, these original petitions are heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. O.P. (RC) No. 97 of 2022:- The petitioners are the respondents-tenants in R.C.P. No. 7 of 2016 on the file of the Rent Control Court (Munsiff), Thaliparamba, a petition filed by the respondents herein-landlords on 08.03.2016, under Sections 11(2), 11(3), 11(4)(iii) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, seeking eviction of the tenants from the petition schedule shop room bearing No. TMC XXII/53 in Thaliparamba Municipality. On receipt of notice in Ext.P1 RCP, the tenants entered appearance and filed Ext.P2 counter dated 03.11.2016. 2.1. When RCP was listed for evidence on 01.08.2018, the tenants remained absent and the Rent Control Court passed an ex-parte order of eviction, on 04.08.2018. The tenants filed I.A. No. 2269 of 2018 seeking an order to set aside the ex-parte order, which was allowed by the Rent Control Court. Thereafter, when RCP was listed for evidence on 07.06.2019, the tenants remained absent and the Rent Control Court passed an ex-parte order. The tenants filed I.A. No. 1834 of 2019 seeking an order to set aside the ex-parte order, which was allowed by the Rent Control Court. Subsequently, when RCP was listed for evidence on 12.07.2021, the tenants remained absent and the Rent Control Court passed an exparte order of eviction, on 15.06.2019. The tenants filed I.A. No. 1 of 2021 seeking an order to set aside the ex-parte order, which was allowed by the Rent Control Court. Thereafter, on 11.11.2021, the Rent Control Court posted RCP to 05.03.2022, in the special list for evidence. Since the tenants changed their counsel, the Rent Control Court relisted RCP to 02.04.2022. 2.2. The tenants filed I.A. No. 1 of 2021 seeking an order to set aside the ex-parte order, which was allowed by the Rent Control Court. Thereafter, on 11.11.2021, the Rent Control Court posted RCP to 05.03.2022, in the special list for evidence. Since the tenants changed their counsel, the Rent Control Court relisted RCP to 02.04.2022. 2.2. On 01.04.2022, the tenants filed I.A. No. 3 of 2022 in R.C.P. No. 7 of 2016 (Ext.P3), an application under Section 23(g) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, read with Order XXVI Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, for issuing a commissioner for local inspection to report the following aspects: OTHERS LANGUAGE In that interlocutory application, the landlords filed an objection dated 04.04.2022 (Ext.P4), opposing the relief sought for, contending that the attempt of the tenants in filing such an application without mentioning anything to identify the buildings alleged to have been in the possession of the landlords, is only to drag the proceedings in the RCP. The Rent Control Court, by the order dated 04.04.2022 (Ext.P5), dismissed I.A. No. 3 of 2022. The reasoning of the Rent Control Court in Ext.P5 order reads thus: “It is seen that the matters sought to be reported by the petitioner is the room which are kept locked in the possession of the respondent and other matters pointed out by the petitioner. It is to be noted that this petition is filed when the case is in the published list. The petitioner even has not specified the room allegedly in the vacant possession of the respondent. Further by taking an advocate commissioner will not serve any purpose to identify the vacant possession of the same. That has to be proved by the respondent by other means. The 2nd prayer is also not specific. Hence, I find that this application is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed.” (Underline supplied) 2.3. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioners-tenants are before this Court in this original petition, invoking the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside Ext.P5 order dated 04.04.2022 of the Rent Control Court in I.A. No. 3 of 2022 in R.C.P. No. 7 of 2016 and to allow that interlocutory application. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioners-tenants are before this Court in this original petition, invoking the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside Ext.P5 order dated 04.04.2022 of the Rent Control Court in I.A. No. 3 of 2022 in R.C.P. No. 7 of 2016 and to allow that interlocutory application. On 06.05.2022, when this original petition came up for admission, the petitioners were directed to take out notice before admission to the respondents, by speed post. 3. O.P. (RC) No. 98 of 2022:- The petitioners are the respondents-tenants in R.C.P. No. 8 of 2016 on the file of the Rent Control Court (Munsiff), Thaliparamba, a petition filed by the respondents herein-landlords on 08.03.2016, under Sections 11(2), 11(3), 11(4)(iii) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, seeking eviction of the tenants from the petition schedule shop room bearing No. TMC XXII/54 in Thaliparamba Municipality. On receipt of notice in Ext.P1 RCP, the tenants entered appearance and filed Ext.P2 counter dated 03.11.2016. 3.1. When RCP was listed for evidence on 01.08.2018, the tenants remained absent and the Rent Control Court passed an ex-parte order of eviction, on 04.08.2018. The tenants filed an interlocutory application seeking an order to set aside the ex-parte order, which was allowed by the Rent Control Court. Thereafter, when RCP was listed for evidence on 07.06.2019, the tenants remained absent and the Rent Control Court passed an ex-parte order. The tenants filed another interlocutory application seeking an order to set aside the exparte order, which was allowed by the Rent Control Court. Subsequently, when RCP was listed for evidence on 12.07.2021, the tenants remained absent and the Rent Control Court passed an ex-parte order of eviction, on 15.06.2019. The tenants filed another interlocutory application seeking an order to set aside the ex-parte order, which was allowed by the Rent Control Court. Thereafter, on 11.11.2021, the Rent Control Court posted RCP to 05.03.2022, in the special list for evidence. Since the tenants changed their counsel, the Rent Control Court relisted RCP to 02.04.2022. 3.2. The tenants filed another interlocutory application seeking an order to set aside the ex-parte order, which was allowed by the Rent Control Court. Thereafter, on 11.11.2021, the Rent Control Court posted RCP to 05.03.2022, in the special list for evidence. Since the tenants changed their counsel, the Rent Control Court relisted RCP to 02.04.2022. 3.2. On 01.04.2022, the tenants filed I.A. No. 2 of 2022 in R.C.P. No. 8 of 2016 (Ext.P3), an application under Section 23(g) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, read with Order XXVI Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, for issuing a commissioner for local inspection to report the following aspects: OTHERS LANGUAGE In that interlocutory application, the landlords filed an objection dated 04.04.2022 (Ext.P4), opposing the relief sought for, which is similarly worded as the objection filed in I.A. No. 3 of 2022 in R.C.P. No. 7 of 2016. The Rent Control Court, by the order dated 04.04.2022 (Ext.P5), dismissed I.A. No. 2 of 2022, which is similarly worded as the order in I.A. No. 3 of 2022 in R.C.P. No. 7 of 2016. 3.3. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioners-tenants are before this Court in this original petition, invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside Ext.P5 order dated 04.04.2022 of the Rent Control Court in I.A. No. 2 of 2022 in R.C.P. No. 8 of 2016 and to allow that interlocutory application. On 06.05.2022, when this original petition came up for admission, the petitioners were directed to take out notice before admission to the respondents, by speed post. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners in the original petitions. The service of notice is not complete on the respondents. Considering the nature of relief proposed to be granted, completion of service of notice on respondents 1 and 2 is dispensed with. 5. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners in the original petitions. The service of notice is not complete on the respondents. Considering the nature of relief proposed to be granted, completion of service of notice on respondents 1 and 2 is dispensed with. 5. The issue that arises for consideration in these original petitions is whether any interference is warranted on the order dated 04.04.2022 of the Rent Control Court, Taliparamba in I.A. No. 3 of 2022 in R.C.P. No. 7 of 2016 [Ext.P5 in O.P. (RC) No. 97 of 2022] and the order dated 04.04.2022 in I.A. No. 2 of 2022 in R.C.P. No. 8 of 2016 [Ext.P5 in O.P. (RC) No. 98 of 2022], whereby the applications filed by the tenants for appointing a commissioner for local inspection to ascertain the facts stated in those applications stand rejected for the reasons stated in those orders. 6. Section 11 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act deals with eviction of tenants. As per Section 11(1), notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law or contract a tenant shall not be evicted, whether in execution of a decree or otherwise, except in accordance with the provisions of the Act. As per Section 11(3) of the Act, a landlord may apply to the Rent Control Court, for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the building if he bona fide needs the building for his own occupation or for the occupation by any member of his family dependent on him. As per the first proviso to Section 11(3), the Rent Control Court shall not give any such direction if the landlord has another building of his own in his possession in the same city, town or village except where the Rent Control Court is satisfied that for special reasons, in any particular case it will be just and proper to do so. As per the second proviso to Section 11(3), the Rent Control Court shall not give any direction to a tenant to put the landlord in possession, if such tenant is depending for his livelihood mainly on the income derived from any trade or business carried on in such building and there is no other suitable building available in the locality for such person to carry on such trade or business. 7. 7. In M.L. Prabhakar v. Rajiv Singal, (2001) 2 SCC 355 the Apex Court was dealing with a case in which eviction on the ground of bona fide requirement was sought for under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. In the said decision, the Apex Court relied on the law laid down in Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani, (1999) 1 SCC 141 , wherein it was held that, the question whether the landlord has any other reasonably suitable accommodation is a question which is intermixed with the question regarding bona fide requirement, which is a defence for the tenant. 8. In Vasantha Mallan v. N.S. Aboobacker Siddique, 2020 (1) KHC 21 the question that arose before a Division Bench of this Court was whether a landlord is bound to plead under the first proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act, the availability of vacant building in his possession and seek to explain special reason for non-occupation of such premises, in a proceeding initiated for eviction of the tenant under Section 11(3) of the Act. The Division Bench held that the initial burden to prove that the landlord is in possession of vacant building, if any, is only upon the tenant unless the landlord himself admits any such vacant building to be in his possession. Only when the primary burden of proof in this behalf is discharged by the tenant, the burden shifts to the landlord to show otherwise or that the vacant premises are not suited to his needs. It is up to the tenant alone to take up the contention and prove that landlord is in vacant possession of the premises. 9. In Vasantha Mallan, relying on the law laid down by the Apex Court in M.L. Prabhakar (2001) 2 SCC 355 the Division Bench held that, it is not incumbent on the landlord to disclose in his pleading the availability of vacant building in his possession. The non-disclosure of vacant premises cannot be picked up as a reason or circumstance to doubt the bona fides of the claim of the landlord put forward under Section 11(3) of the Act. It is not obligatory for the landlord to disclose in his pleadings the details of the vacant buildings available in his possession. The non-disclosure of vacant premises cannot be picked up as a reason or circumstance to doubt the bona fides of the claim of the landlord put forward under Section 11(3) of the Act. It is not obligatory for the landlord to disclose in his pleadings the details of the vacant buildings available in his possession. Nor does the first proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act insists the landlord to plead that the buildings available in his possession are not sufficient to meet his requirements. 10. In Dineshan Pillai P.B. v. Joseph @ Jose, 2019 (3) KHC 206 a Division Bench of this Court was dealing with a case in which one of the contentions of the tenant was that, the landlord has several other vacant buildings of his own, in his possession, to start the proposed business. The Division Bench noticed that, the pleadings are very vague with respect to the first proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act. It is stated that the landlord has several other buildings. No particular vacant room has been identified or pointed out in the pleadings. The Division Bench opined that, it is obligatory on the part of the tenant to plead and prove the identity of the vacant building in the possession of the landlord. In the absence of specific pleadings, disclosing the identity of the vacant building in the possession of the landlord, it can be said that the tenant has not discharged the initial burden of proof under the first p roviso to Section 11(3) of the Act. 11. Insofar as the first proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act is concerned, the only statement made in the counter filed by the tenants in both the RCPs is as follows: OTHERS LANGUAGE 12. In the affidavits filed in support of the interlocutory applications for appointing a commissioner for local inspection, the tenants have stated as follows: OTHERS LANGUAGE 13. In Ext.P2 counter, the tenant has stated that the landlord and her husband have several other vacant buildings in the locality for starting a provision store. No particular vacant room, allegedly in possession of the landlord or her husband, has been identified or pointed out in Ext.P2 counter filed in the RCPs. In Ext.P2 counter, the tenant has stated that the landlord and her husband have several other vacant buildings in the locality for starting a provision store. No particular vacant room, allegedly in possession of the landlord or her husband, has been identified or pointed out in Ext.P2 counter filed in the RCPs. It is obligatory on the part of the tenant to plead and prove the identity of the vacant building in the possession of the landlord, in order to attract the first proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act. Therefore, in the absence of specific pleadings in Ext.P2 counter disclosing the identity of any vacant building in the possession of the landlord, it can only be said that the tenant has not discharged the initial burden of proof under the first proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act. 14. Order XXVI, Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 deals with commissions to make local investigations. As per Rule 9, in any suit in which the court deems a local investigation to be requisite or proper for the purpose of elucidating any matter in dispute, or of ascertaining the market-value of any property, or the amount of any mesne profits or damages or annual net profits, the court may issue a commission to such person as it thinks fit directing him to make such investigation and to report thereon to the court. 15. It is clear from the provisions under Order XXVI, Rule 9 of the Code that, the court can appoint a commission for local inspection only when it finds that a local inspection by the commission is required for the purpose of elucidating any matter in dispute or for any other purpose mentioned in the said Rule. Therefore, in a case in which the tenant has not discharged the initial burden of proof under the first proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act, by disclosing the identity of any vacant building in the possession of the landlord, he cannot be permitted to take out a commission for local inspection, since a local inspection by a commission is required only for the purpose of elucidating any matter in dispute. 16. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the tenants may be granted an opportunity to plead the identity of the rooms in vacant possession of the landlord and her husband. 16. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the tenants may be granted an opportunity to plead the identity of the rooms in vacant possession of the landlord and her husband. In these original petitions, this Court is invoking the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Under clause (1) of Article 227 of the Constitution of India, every High Court shall have superintendence over all courts and tribunals throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction. 17. 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. 18. 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 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. 19. 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. 19. 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. 20. 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 a 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. 21. 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 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 violation of the fundamental principles of law or justice. 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 violation of the 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 a 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. 22. In such circumstances, we find no reason to interfere with the order of the Rent Control Court dated 04.04.2022 in I.A. No. 3 of 2022 in R.C.P. No. 7 of 2016 [Ext.P5 order in O.P. (RC) No. 97 of 2022] and the order in I.A. No. 2 of 2022 in R.C.P. No. 8 of 2016 [Ext.P5 order in O.P. (RC) No. 98 of 2022]. 23. In the result, these original petitions fail and they are accordingly dismissed. No order as to cost.