KUNHEEBI v. V.S. KOYETTI

OPRC. No. 1734 /20122the three rent control petitions, which were considered togetherand tried jointly, were the following;“1. Whether the RCP 182/04 is barred u/s.25of the Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act ? 4. Whether the RCP 184/04 is barred u/s 25of the Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act ?7. Whether the RCP 78/05 is barred bysection 25 of the Buildings (Lease and RentControl) Act ?”3. The Rent Control Court notwithstanding the abovepoints, which were preliminary in nature, proceeded with theadjudication and has passed Ext.P7 common order answering theabove three points against the landlady and answering all theother 8 issues touching the merits of the eviction ground infavour of the landlady. Ultimately by Ext.P7 all the three rentcontrol petitions were allowed as prayed for and eviction orderwas passed under Section 11 (2) (b) . 4. Sri.A.V.M.Salahuddeen learned counsel for thepetitioner/landlady submitted before us that the findings inExt.P7 on issue Nos. 1,4 and 7 are clearly without jurisdictionand illegal. According to him, the Rent Control Court ought tohave referred those issues to the WAKF Tribunal. The learned OPRC. No. 1734 /20123counsel submitted that the issue raised in this original petition isof considerable importance and of great amplitude as similarissues are likely to be crop up in hundreds of other cases allover the State. The learned counsel, therefore, requested thatwe should invoke the supervisory jurisdiction of this court underArticle 227 and interfere with Ext.P7 and relegate theconsideration of the three issues referred to herein above to theWAKF Tribunal. 5. We enquired of Mr.Salahuddeen whether the landladyconcedes that the finding in Ext.P7 on issue Nos. 1,4 and 7 iscorrect. The learned counsel submitted that the landlady evennow maintains that it is the Rent Control Court which is havingjurisdiction over the building and has every power to pass theeviction order which is passed in favour of the landlady underExt.P7. According to him, a grave jurisdictional/proceduralirregularity was committed by the Rent Control Court in decidingissue Nos. 1, 4 & 7 in Ext.P7 by itself in stead of referring thematter to the WAKF Tribunal. 6. It appears to us that the petitioner has reason to beaggrieved by the findings entered by the Rent Control Court on OPRC. No. 1734 /20124issue Nos. 1,4 & 7 in Ext.P7. May be the above finding iserroneous. But the question that we are called upon to decideis whether Ext.P7 is an order which is liable to be visited insupervisory jurisdiction of this court under Article 227.According to us, the above question can be answered only in thenegative. When we keep in mind the parameters for invocationof the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 and when wegauge Ext.P7 by those parameters, it is extremely difficult for usto say that Ext.P7 is an order liable to be visited under thesupervisory jurisdiction which is visitorial in nature and isexpected to be invoked only very sparingly. We find that Ext.P7is a final order passed in the Rent Control Petition granting thedirection for eviction which was sought for by thelandlady/petitioner. The landlady is not aggrieved by the orderof eviction granted under Ext.P7. The landlady's apprehensionis that she may find it difficult to execute Ext. P7. We do notthink so. So long as Ext.P7 stands, the eviction order underExt.P7 is executable. If the landlady believes that the veryexecutability of the eviction order is doubtful in view of thefindings on issue Nos. 1,4 & 7 incorporated in Ext.P7, the remedy OPRC. No. 1734 /20125of the landlady lies in the form of regular appeal under Section18. Hence, we relegate the landlady/petitioner to such aremedy. If the petitioner files a regular appeal under Section 18against Ext.P7 and requests the Rent Control Appellate Authorityconcerned to have an early disposal of the appeal, especially onthe correctness of the findings entered by the Rent Control Courton issue Nos. 1,4 & 7 in Ext.P7, the Appellate Authorityconcerned (the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Kozhikode),shall consider that request favourably. In other words, theprospective rent control appeal to be filed by the petitioneragainst Ext.P7 shall be given top priority and should be disposedof in accordance with law at the earliest and at any rate within aperiod of one month of completion of service of notice on therespondents concerned. Sd/- PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGESd/-A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI,JUDGE. dpk/True copy/P.A to Judge. OPRC. No. 1734 /20126