Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. BABU THURSDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 25TH BHADRA, O.P.(RC) NO. 64 OF 2018 ARISING OUT OF E.P.NO.951 OF 2017 IN R.C.P.NO.110 OF 2014 OF MUNSIFF COURT, CHAVAKKAD, THRISSUR PETITIONER/JUDGMENT DEBTOR/RESPNDENT : SHERIFF AGED 50 YEARS S/O.MUHAMMED, AGED 50 YEARS, PUTHIYAVOOTTIL, VATANAPPILLY AMSOM & DESOM, CHAVAKKAD, THRISSUR. BY ADV SRI.K.I.SAGEER RESPONDENT/DECREE HOLDER/PETITIONER: SHAJI AGED 51 YEARS S/O.MUHAMMED, AGED 51 YEARS, KAITHAPPULLY, PERUMPADAPPU, CHENTRAPPINNY, KODUNGALLUR TALUK, THRISSUR. BY ADV SMT.AJITHALAKSHMI SABU THIS OP (RENT CONTROL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16.09.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: -2-
JUDGMENT
Anil K. Narendran, J.
The petitioner, who is the judgment debtor in E.P.No.951
of 2017 in R.C.P.No.110 of 2014 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Chavakkad, has filed this original petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, seeking an order directing the said court to keep in abeyance or adjourn the proceedings in that execution petition, for a period of three months, so as to enable the petitioner to honor the terms and conditions in Ext.P4 mediation agreement dated 12.06.2017.
2. E.P.No.951 of 2017 arises out of the order of
eviction granted by the Rent Control Court, Chavakkad, in R.C.P.No.110 of 2014. The landlord filed the said R.C.P. seeking eviction of the tenant from the petition schedule room, under Sections 11(2)(b) and 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965. In R.C.P.No.110 of 2014, the tenant filed objections. The R.C.P. was referred to
Adalat and the parties have arrived at a settlement. Accordingly, the R.C.P. was disposed of in terms of Ext.P4 -3-
mediation agreement dated 12.06.2017, as stated in paragraph 2 of this original petition. As per the terms and conditions of that settlement, the rent of the petition schedule room will be enhanced by 7% per year and the tenant had agreed to pay rent at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per month from 01.07.2017 onwards and arrears of rent to the tune of Rs.2,59,250/-, on or before 10.09.2017, and in case of default, the tenant has to vacate the room. Since the terms and conditions of Ext.P4 mediation agreement was not complied with, the landlord filed E.P.No.951 of 2017 in
R.C.P.No.110 of 2014, on 15.11.2017. Thereafter, on 19.06.2018, the tenant filed this original petition before this Court to keep in abeyance or adjourn the proceedings in that execution petition, for a period of three months, so as to enable him to honour the terms and conditions in Ext.P4.
3. On 31.05.2019, when this original petition came up for admission, this Court issued urgent notice on admission by speed post to the respondent. This Court granted an interim -4- stay of all further proceedings in E.P.No.951 of 2017 in R.C.P.No.110 of 2014 on the file of the Munsiff Court,
Chavakkad, for a period of one month. The said interim order
was thereafter extended for a period of one month and on 07.08.2019, for a further period of one month. The order of stay granted in this original petition expired on 07.09.2019.
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. Clause (2) of Article 227 provides that, without prejudice to the generality of the provisions under clause (1), the High Court may call for returns from such courts; make and issue general rules and prescribe forms for regulating the practice and proceedings of such courts; and prescribe forms in which books, entries and accounts shall be kept by the officers of any such courts. Going by clause (4), nothing in
-5- Article 227 shall be deemed to confer on a High Court powers of superintendence over any court or tribunal constituted by or under any law relating to the Armed Forces.
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 -6-
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 they act in accordance with the well established principles of law. The High Court is vested with the powers of superintendence and/or judicial revision, even in matters where no revision or appeal lies to the High Court. The jurisdiction under this Article is, in some ways, wider than the power and jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is, however, well to remember the well known adage that greater the power, greater the care and caution in exercise thereof. The High Court is, therefore, expected to exercise such wide powers with great care, caution and circumspection. The exercise of jurisdiction must be within the well recognised constraints. It cannot be
-7-
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.
7. 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. On the facts of the said case, the Apex Court held that, when the Labour Court has exercised its discretion keeping in view the facts of the case and the cases of similarly situated workmen, the High Court
-8- ought not to have interfered with the exercise of discretion by the Labour Court.
8. 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 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.
9. 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 -9-
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 abuse of 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 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.
10. In this original petition filed on 19.06.2018, invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article -10- 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, who is the
judgment debtor in E.P.No.951 of 2017 in R.C.P.No.110 of
2014 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Chavakkad, is seeking an order directing the said court to keep in abeyance or adjourn the proceedings in that execution petition, for a period of three months, so as to enable the petitioner to honor the terms and conditions in Ext.P4 mediation agreement dated 12.06.2017.
11. In paragraph 3 of the original petition, the
petitioner has stated that, non-honouring of the terms and conditions in Ext.P4 mediation agreement by the petitioner is not willful or deliberate. Since the petitioner's mother, Amina, is suffering from cancer and she was admitted in Lakeshore Hospital, Ernakulam, he could not pay the amount as agreed in Ext.P4. The document marked as Ext.P5 is a copy of ultrasound scan report of abdomen of Smt.Amina K.V., which is one dated 14.03.2018. Considering the aforesaid fact, this Court had shown indulgence by granting an order of stay of
-11- further proceedings in E.P.No.951 of 2017 in R.C.P.No.110 of 2014 of the Munsiff Court, Chavakkad, for a period of one month, which was extended for a further period of one month each on 03.07.2019 and 07.08.2019. The said interim order, which expired on 07.09.2019 was not extended further.
12. Viewed in the light of the law laid down in the
decisions referred to supra, the petitioner is not entitled for any further indulgence from this Court, at this distance of time, in exercise of the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. In the result, this original petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. No order as to cost. Sd/- ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE Sd/- K. BABU, JUDGE AV -12- APPENDIX OF OP (RC) 64/2018 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION, E.P.NO.951/2017 IN R.C.P.NO.110/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE HON'BLE MUNSIFF, CHAVAKKAD DATED 15-11-2017.
EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION, R.C.P.NO.110/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE HON'BLE MUNSIFF, CHAVAKKAD DATED 08- 12-2014. EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN R.C.P.NO.110/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE HON'BLE MUNSIFF, CHAVAKKAD DATED 22-12-2015. EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE MEDIATION AGREEMENT DT.12-06-2017. EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE ONE OF THE MEDICAL CERTIFICATE IN RESPECT OF AMINA DATED 14-03-2018.