The power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India should be sparingly exercised and interference should be limited to situations of patent perversity, gross failure of justice, or flouting of natural justice. The Court must maintain efficiency and public confidence in the administration of justice.

1. - This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner- tenant under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 11.10.2012 passed by learned Appellate Rent Tribunal, jodhpur whereby the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal has refused to take the documents on record filed alongwith additional affidavit filed by the petitioner-tenant after its the amendment in the written statement came to be allowed by previous order dated 11.10.2012 passed by learned Appellate Rent Tribunal in Appeal No. 76 of 2008, Smt. Nikky Devi v. Chothmal .

2. Mr. O.P. Boob, learned counsel for the petitioner-tenant submitted that the documents filed alongwith additional affidavit to support the averments made in the amended written statement deserve to be taken on record and the same could not have been refused by the Appellate Rent Tribunal, which has co-extensive powers with that of Rent Tribunal and therefore, the impugned order dated 11.10.2012 cannot be sustained to that extent.

3. A coordinate bench of this Court, while issuing notices to the respondents vide the order dated 22.11.2012 stayed the further proceedings in Appeal No. 76/2008 pending before the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal, jodhpur.

4. On the other hand, Mr. M.L. Chhangani, learned counsel for the respondent/landlord submitted that the additional affidavit filed by the petitioner- tenant only can be taken on record, subject to cross-examination by the landlord/respondent; and no additional documents can be taken on record, nor any further record can be allowed to be summoned at this stage of appeal. Since, the amendment in the written statement was allowed in view of subsequent events/developments i.e. the two sons of the respondent/landlord, got employment in Government services, therefore, to that extent such amendment has already been allowed by the learned Tribunal on 11.10.2012, and which order is, however, not under challenge in the present writ petition. He thus, submitted that the additional affidavit filed by the petitioner/tenant may be taken in the evidence by the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal. He, however, opposed the request of remand to the lower Rent Tribunal for this purpose of cross-examination and submitted that the Appellate Rent Tribunal itself may be directed to allow such cross-examination of the additional affidavit before it.

5. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner-defendant/tenant and the respondent/landlord at some length, this Court is of the opinion that though the scope of interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India in such interlocutory orders passed by the learned Rent Tribunal or the Appellate Rent Tribunals is very minimal in view of recent decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shalini Shyam Shetty & Anr. v. Rajendra Shankar Patil, reported in 2010 AIR SCW 6387 . The Apex Court in the case of Shalini Shyam Shetty (supra), has held as under:

"62. On an analysis of the aforesaid decisions of this Court, the following principles on the exercise of High Court's jurisdiction tinder Article 227 of the Constitution may be formulated:

(a) A petition under Article 226 of the -Constitution is different from a petition under Article 227. The mode of exercised power by High Court under these two Articles is also different.

(b) In any event, a petition under Article 227 be called a writ petition. The history of the conferment of writ jurisdiction on High Courts is substantially different from the history of conferment of the power of Superintendence on the High Courts under Article 227 have been discussed above.

(c) High Courts cannot, on the drop of a hat, in exercise of its power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution, interfere with the orders of Tribunals or Courts inferior to it. Nor can it, in exercise of this power, act as a Court of appeal over the orders of Court or Tribunal subordinate to it. In cases where an alternative statutory mode of redressal has been provided, that w