Sheriff vs Shaji
2021 Latest Caselaw 19384 Ker

        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,
                             1943
                    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-

OP (RC) NO. 64 OF 2018



                               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

OP (RC) NO. 64 OF 2018

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

OP (RC) NO. 64 OF 2018

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

OP (RC) NO. 64 OF 2018

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

OP (RC) NO. 64 OF 2018

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

OP (RC) NO. 64 OF 2018

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

OP (RC) NO. 64 OF 2018

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

OP (RC) NO. 64 OF 2018

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

OP (RC) NO. 64 OF 2018

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

OP (RC) NO. 64 OF 2018

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

OP (RC) NO. 64 OF 2018

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.