The need for an authenticated copy of the impugned order when challenging it under Article 227 and the power of superintendence under Article 227 to maintain public confidence in the functioning of tribunals and courts.

JUDGMENT :

(Anil K. Narendran, J.)

The petitioner is the respondent-tenant in RCP No.27 of 2023 on the file of the Rent Control Court (Principal Munsiff), Thrissur, which was filed on respondents herein-landlords, under Section 11(2)(b) and 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease & Rent Control Act), 1965 seeking eviction of the tenant from the petition scheduled building. In that RCP, the Rent Control Court has passed an ex parte order of eviction. The tenant has filed this original petition, invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:

“To set aside Exhibit P8 order of dismissal dated 19.01.2024 of Exhibit P7, EA 3651/2023 in EP 1651/2023 in RCP 27/2023 of Hon’ble Principal Munsiff Court, Thrissur and allow Ext.P7, EA 3631/2023 in EP 1651/2023 in RCP 27/2023 pending on the file of the Hon’ble Principal Munsiff Court, Thrissur by keeping the proceedings in EP 1651/2023 in RCP 27/2023 in abeyance till the disposal of Exhibit P5 & P6 IA’s in RCP 27/2023.”

2. The document marked as Ext.P8 is the printout of daily status in E.A.No.3631 of 2023 in RCP No.27 of 2023.

3. The averments in the original petition would show that to set aside the ex parte order of eviction, the petitioner filed I.A.No.2 of 2023 along with I.A.No.3 of 2023 to condone the delay of 112 days in filing the former application. Those applications are pending consideration before the Rent Control Court. The landlord filed E.P.No.1651 of 2023 for executing the ex parte order of eviction, in which the tenant filed E.A.No.3631 of 2023 to keep in abeyance the proceedings to effect delivery of the petition scheduled building, till consideration of I.A.Nos.2 and 3 of 2023 in RCP No.27 of 2023. However, E.A.No.3631 of 2023 ended in dismissal by the order dated 19.01.2024, as evidenced by Ext.P8 daily status.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner-tenant would submit that on 22.01.2024, the date on which the original petition was filed, the tenant submitted an application before the Principal Munsiff Court, Thrissur to obtain certified copy of the order dated 19.01.2024.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner-tenant.

6. 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.

7. 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.

8. In an original petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner cannot challenge an order passed by the court below, without producing an authenticated copy of the same. It is held so in the decision of this Court in Babu Scaria v. Jessy Thomas [2017 (5) KHC 721], in the context of Rule 147 of the Rules of the High Court of Kerala, 1971. Paragraph 11 of that decision reads thus;

“11. Going by clause (b) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 147, if an order is impugned in an application filed under Article 226 or under Article 227 or Article 228 of the Constitution of India such application shall be accompanied by a copy of the order impugned. Further, sub-rule (2) of Rule 147 mandates that the copy of the impugned order and other doc