The High Court's power under Article 227 is to be used sparingly, only in situations of clear judicial error or fundamental procedural violations in subordinate courts.

Anil K. Narendran, J.

The petitioner, who is the respondent-tenant-judgment debtor in E.P.No.15 of 2023 in R.C.(OP) No.31 of 2018 on the file of the Principal Munsiff Court, Kollam, has filed this Original Petition invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, seeking an order directing the said court not to evict the petitioner from the petition schedule shop rooms in E.P.No.15 of 2023 in R.C.(OP) No.31 of 2018, till consideration of Ext.P8 execution application (CF No.1914 of 2023) filed in E.P.No.15 of 2023 in R.C.(OP) No.31 of 2018, which is one filed for adjourning E.P.No.15 of 2023 in R.C.(OP) No.31 of 2018, which is listed before the Principal Munsiff Court, Kollam on 03.03.2023, to another date.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner-

tenant-judgment debtor.

3. The respondent herein-landlord filed R.C.(OP)

No.31 of 2018 before the Rent Control Court (Principal Munsiff, Kollam), under Sections 11 (2)(b) and 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 seeking eviction of the petitioner-tenant from the petition scheduled shop rooms. The Rent Control Court granted an order of eviction in R.C.(OP) No.31 of 2018, i.e., Ext.P1 order dated 29.02.2020, under (2)(b) and 11(3) of the Act and the tenant was directed to put the landlord in possession of the petition schedule shop rooms, within 45 days and to pay costs. The tenant filed R.C.(Appeal) No.6 of 2021 before the Rent Control Appellate Authority (Addl. District Judge-IV), Kollam, under Section 18 (1)(b) of the Act. That appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution by Ext.P4 order dated 09.12.2022. The landlord filed in E.P.No.15 of 2023 in R.C. (OP) No.31 of 2018 before the Principal Munsiff Court, Kollam, i.e., Ext.P6 execution petition, in which the tenant received Ext.P7 notice dated 25.01.2023, requiring him to appear before the execution court on 03.03.2023. The tenant filed Ext.P8 execution application (CF No.1914 of 2023) before the Principal Munsiff Court, Kollam for adjourning E.P.No.15 of 2023 in R.C.(OP) No.31 of 2018, which is listed on

03.03.2023, to another date.

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.

5. InShalini 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. InJai Singh v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi [ (2010) 9 SCC 385 ], while considering the nature and scope 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 exercise of jurisdiction must be within the well recognised constraints. It cannot be 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