Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 256 (KER)

Suhail. K. M v. Peter Shyju

2023-03-10

ANIL K.NARENDRAN, P.G.AJITHKUMAR

body2023
JUDGMENT : Anil K. Narendran, J. The petitioners-landlords filed RCP No.1 of 2023 before the Rent Control Court, Ernakulam, under Section 11(2)(b) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, seeking eviction of the respondent herein-tenant from the petition schedule building, on the ground of arrears of rent. The said RCP was filed on 03.01.2023. In that RCP, the landlords filed I.A.No.1 of 2023, on 03.03.2023, an application filed under Section 12 of the Act, seeking an order directing the tenant to deposit the admitted arrears of rent. The landlords filed this original petition on 08.03.2023, invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, seeking time-bound consideration of I.A.No.1 of 2023, within a reasonable time to be fixed by this Court. I.A.No.1 of 2023 is listed before the Rent Control Court, on 25.03.2023. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners-landlords. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners-landlords would submit that since the interlocutory application filed by the landlords under Section 12 of the Act seeking an order directing the tenants to deposit the admitted arrears of rent is pending consideration before the Rent Control Court, they are entitled to invoke the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, seeking time-bound consideration of I.A.No.1 of 2023, within a reasonable time to be fixed by this Court. 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 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 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 all subordinate courts, as well as statutory or quasi-judicial tribunals, act in accordance with the well-established principles of law. The exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution must be within well-recognised constraints. 7. In the instant case, the petitioners-landlords filed RCP No.1 of 2023 before the Rent Control Court on 03.01.2023. In that RCP, they filed I.A.No.1 of 2023, on 03.03.2023, under Section 12 of the Act, seeking an order directing the tenant to deposit the admitted arrears of rent, which is now listed before the Rent Control Court, on 25.03.2023. Seeking time-bound consideration of I.A.No.1 of 2023, the landlords filed this original petition, on 08.03.2023, invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 8. The petitioners-landlords, who have filed I.A.No.1 of 2023, before the Rent Control Court only on 03.03.2023, cannot approach this Court by filing an original petition on 08.03.2023, invoking the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, seeking time-bound consideration of that interlocutory application. 8. The petitioners-landlords, who have filed I.A.No.1 of 2023, before the Rent Control Court only on 03.03.2023, cannot approach this Court by filing an original petition on 08.03.2023, invoking the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, seeking time-bound consideration of that interlocutory application. An application filed by the landlord seeking an order directing the tenant to deposit the admitted arrears of rent has to be dealt with by the Rent Control Court taking note of the requirements of Section 12 of the Act and also the direction contained in the decision of this Court in Abdul Razak P.M. v. K.C. Thomas and others [ 2022 (4) KHC 260 ], whereby, in the exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, this Court directed all Rent Control Appellate Authorities in the State to ensure time-bound disposal of the appeals filed under Section 18(1)(b) of the Act, against an order passed by the Rent Control Court under Section 12(3) of the Act. Similarly, all Rent Control Courts/Appellate Authorities in the State are directed to ensure time-bound disposal of the applications filed under Section 12 of the Act, in pending Rent Control Petitions/Rent Control Appeals. 9. In case there is any delay in the disposal of I.A.No.1 of 2023, the petitioners-landlords can approach the Rent Control Court with an application for time-bound disposal of that interlocutory application, in view of the direction contained in the decision of this Court in Abdul Razak P.M. [ 2022 (4) KHC 260 ]. When the object of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is to maintain the orderly functioning of subordinate courts, as well as statutory or quasi-judicial tribunals, in such a way as it does not bring it into any disrepute, the petitioners-landlords, who have filed I.A.No.1 of 2023 before the Rent Control Court only on 03.03.2023, cannot rush to this Court by filing an original petition on 08.03.2023, invoking the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227, seeking time-bound consideration of that interlocutory application. This original petition is nothing but an abuse of the process of the court and the same is accordingly dismissed.