The court's jurisdiction under Art.227 of the Constitution is limited to excess or want of jurisdiction in the tribunal and violation of procedure or principles of natural justice.

D.J. Jagannadha Raju, J.

1. This is an original petition filed under Art.227 of the Constitution of India by an unsuccessful tenant for a writ of certiorari to quash Exts. P3, P4 and P6. Petitioner is the tenant of two rooms Nos. 13 and 14 in building Nos. 241 and 242 in Ward No. 1 covered by Sy. No. 142/1 of Guruvayur Township. He took one room on rent in the year 1954 and another room in 1959. Originally Madhavi Amma was the landlady and after her death, her daughter became the lessor. R.C.O.P. No. 47/79 was filed for eviction of the petitioner, that is a litigation which continued till the filing of the present original petition. Eviction petition was filed on the ground that the landlady requires these two rooms for installation of the generator for running the Cinema Hall 'Sreekrishna Theatre'. As the landlady could not obtain possession of the tenanted premises, she had to install the generator in a temporary shed and that entailed a series of litigations with the township authorities, etc. Ultimately eviction orders have been obtained by the landlady/lessor and they are confirmed.

2. In this petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner/tenant contends that by virtue of subsequent events and the landlady obtaining Ext. P7 order from the Guruvayur Township Committee the reason for the eviction petition vanishes and hence Exts. P3, P4 and P6 are liable to be quashed and the tenant is entitled to continue in occupation in the tenanted premises. Ext P7 was issued in 1990.

3. On behalf of the respondents Shri. Ananthakrishna Iyer contends that the commissioner who visited the premises has filed a detailed report with a sketch. This clearly shows that by installing the generator in a temporary shed which is behind the auditorium, the landlady faced several difficulties and that the present petitioner has his own accommodation very near to the tenanted premises and hence the eviction orders which have been confirmed should not be interfered with. Shri. Iyer also contends that in proceedings under Art.227 of the Constitution and Art.226 of the Constitution, the court is exercising only judicial review and it cannot go into the questions of fact.

4. On behalf of the petitioner, Shri. Krishnankutty Achan contends that even in cases of petition under Art.227 of the Constitution, subsequent events can be taken into account and the courts have always moulded the reliefs taking into consideration the subsequent events. In this case as the reason for the eviction petition has subsequently disappeared, the orders of eviction should not be confirmed.

5. Art.227 of the Constitution is substituted as follows: Power of superintendence over all courts by the High Court. A reading of the Article clearly indicates that the powers of the High Court under Art.227 are of a very limited amplitude. Judicial decisions have postulated several principles regarding the scope of the power of the High Court under Art.227 of the Constitution. The learned author V.N. Shukla in his book 'Constitution of India' at page 592 lays down the principles governing exercise of jurisdiction under Art.227 of the Constitution. Under clause (b) the author points out that the power should not ordinarily be exercised if any other remedy is available to the aggrieved party, even though the pursuing of that remedy may involve some inconvenience or delay. Under clause (c) he mentions that the power of interference under Art.227 is limited to seeing that the tribunal functions within the limits of its authority. The principal grounds for interference, therefore, would be - (i) want or excess of jurisdiction; (ii) failure to exercise jurisdiction, and (iii) violation of procedure or disregard of principles of natural justice. Then the author points out that for an error of law apparent on the face of the record or a plain error of law the High court would not interfere under Art.227 of the Constitution. Under clause (d), the author points out that in exercising the supe