The main legal point established in the judgment is that the High Court's exercise of jurisdiction under Art.227 should be sparing and only in appropriate cases, and that the Act does not confer unfettered powers on the tenants to remain in possession of the leased premises.

1. Leave granted.

2. Assuming jurisdiction and exercising powers under Art.227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court of Kerala, vide the order impugned in these appeals set aside the judgment of the appellate authority by which the order passed by the rent control court dismissing the respondents-tenants application under S.11(2)(c) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") had been confirmed. After holding that the deposit of the arrears of rent was in terms of S.11(2)(c) of the Act, the High Court gave the respondents-tenants a right to exercise option under the proviso to S.11(4) of the Act. The court held that the power of superintendence conferred upon the High Court under Art.227 of the Constitution of India was not an original proceeding but revisional jurisdiction akin to S.115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The High Court, therefore, impliedly held that exercise of powers under Art.227 was the extension of the statutory powers conferred upon the appellate or revisional authority under a particular statute.

3. Assailing the impugned judgment it has been argued on behalf of the appellants-landlords that even though the High Court had the power of superintendence under Art.227 of the Constitution of India, yet the same was required to be exercised sparingly and only in cases where the subordinate courts and tribunals are shown to have erroneously assumed jurisdiction or failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in them and the order impugned, showed some error of law apparent on the face of the record. Arriving at a finding which is alleged to be perverse or based on no material could not be a ground to exercise the power under the aforesaid Article.

4. It is not denied that the powers conferred upon the High Court under Art.226 and 227 of the Constitution are extraordinary and discretionary powers as distinguished from ordinary statuary powers. No doubt Art.227 confers a right of superintendence over all courts and tribunals throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises the jurisdiction but no corresponding right is conferred upon a litigant to invoke the jurisdiction under the said Article as a matter of right. In fact, powers under this Article cast a duty upon the High Court to keep the inferior courts and tribunals within the limits of their authority and that they do not cross the limits, ensuring the performance of duties by such courts and tribunals in accordance with law conferring powers within the ambit of the enactments creating such courts and tribunals. Only wrong decisions may not be a ground for the exercise of jurisdiction under this Article unless the wrong is referable to grave dereliction of duty and flagrant abuse of power by the subordinate courts and tribunals resulting in grave injustice to any party.

5. In Waryam Singh v. Amarnath (1954 SCR 565) this Court held that power of superintendence conferred by Art.227 is to be exercised more sparingly and only in appropriate cases in order to keep the subordinate courts within the bounds of their authority and not for correcting mere errors. This position of law was reiterated in Nagendra Nath Bose v. Commissioner of Hills Division (1958 SCR 1240). In Bhahutmal Raichand Oswal v. Laxmibai R. Tarta (AIR 1975 SC 1297), this court held that the High Court could not, in the guise of exercising its jurisdiction under Art.227 convert itself into a court of appeal when the Legislature has not conferred a right of appeal. After referring to the judgment of Lord Denning in R. v. Northumber Land Compensation Appeal Tribunal, Exparte Shaw (1952 (1) All. E.R. 122,128), this court in Chandavarkar Sita Ratna Rao v. Ashalata S. Gurnam (JT 1996 SC 561=1986 (4) SCC 416) held:

"It is true that in exercise of jurisdiction under Art.227 of the Constitution, the High Court could go into the question of facts or look into the evidence if justice so requires it, if there is any misdirection