IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE TUESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF JUNE 2014/20TH JYAISHTA, 1936 RCRev..No. 77 of 2012 () AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN RCA 32/2009 OF RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY, I ADDL.DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM DATED 23-08-2011 AGAINST THE ORDER IN RCP 219/2004 OF III ADDL.MUNSIFF COURT, (RENT CONTROL), ERNAKULAM DATED 27-06-2009 REVISION PETITIONER(S) : APPELLANT & ADDL. APPELLANTS 2 & 3/ ----------------------------------- DECEASED PETITIONER
1. T.J. JOSSY (DIED)
2. AJI JOSSY, AGED 41 YEARS W/O.LATE JOSSY, THENAMPARAMBIL HOUSE NEAR SOUTH OVER BRIDGE, KOCHI-6.
3. ALLEN T. JOSSY, AGED 10 YEARS S/O. LATE JOSSY, THENAMPARAMBIL HOUSE NEAR SOUTH OVER BRIDGE KOCHI-16. REPRESENTED BY HIS MOTHER AND GUARDIAN AJI JOSSY.
THE SECOND RESVISION PETITIONER IS APPOINTED AS THE NEXT FRIEND OF THE MINOR THIRD REVISION PETITIONER VIDE ORDER DATED 10.6.2014 IN I.A.NO.1232/14 BY ADVS.SRI.A.BALAGOPALAN SRI.A.RAJAGOPALAN SRI.M.N.MANMADAN SRI.M.S.IMTHIYAZ AHAMMED SRI.K.SANEESH KUMAR RESPONDENT(S) : RESPONDENTS 1 & 2 AND ADDL. RESPONDENTS 3 ------------------------- TO 8/RESPONDENTS 1 & 2
1. P.C.ANTONY(DIED)
2. BIJU S/O. ANTONY, DOOR NO.38/416, THENAMPARAMBIL HOUSE NEAR SOUTH OVER BRIDGE, KOCHI-16.
3. LILLY W/O. ANTONY, PALLATH HOUSE, NETHAJI ROAD MAMANGALAM, EDAPPALLY, KOCHI-24.
RCR 77/2012
4. ZEENA D/O. ANTONY, PALLATH HOUSE, NETHAJI ROAD MAMANGALAM, EDAPPALLY, KOCHI-24.
5. JOHNY S/O. ANTONY, PALLATH HOUSE, NETHAJI ROAD MAMANGALAM, EDAPPALLY, KOCHI-24.
6. SHEEBA D/O. ANTONY, PALLATH HOUSE, NETHAJI ROAD MAMANGALAM, EDAPPALLY, KOCHI-24.
7. BINU S/O.ANTONY, PALLATH HOUSE, NETHAJI ROAD MAMANGALAM, EDAPPALLY, KOCHI-24.
8. BOBAN S/O. ANTONY, PALLATH HOUSE, NETHAJI ROAD MAMANGALAM, EDAPPALLY, KOCHI-24.
R2 TO 7 BY ADV. SRI.AGINOV MATHAPPAN RESPONDENTS 3 TO 8 ARE DELETED FROM THE PARTY ARRAY VIDE ORDER DATED 10.6.2014 IN MEMO DATED 10.6.2014 THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10-06-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
K.T.SANKARAN & A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JJ.
R.C.R.No.77 of 2012 A Dated this the 10th day of June, 2014
K.T.Sankaran, J.
O R D E R
The legal representatives of the landlord in R.C.P.No.219 of 2004, on the file of the Rent Control Court, Ernakulam, are the revision petitioners. The name of the first revision petitioner is shown as T.J.Jossy (who is dead) and his legal representatives are shown as petitioners 2 and 3. The Rent Control Court dismissed the application filed by the landlord under Section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. The order of the Rent Control Court was confirmed in R.C.A.No.32 of 2009, on the file of the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Ernakulam.
2. The parties settled the disputes and differences before the Kerala State Mediation and Conciliation Centre and a memorandum of agreement dated 26th May, 2014 was signed by revision petitioners 2 and 3 and the second respondent. The terms of the settlement are the following :
“1. The second petitioner, landlady - Aji Jossy agrees to permit the second respondent, Tenant - Biju to continue as a tenant in the schedule shop room as per the prevailing monthly rent till a new lease deed is executed (1.7.2014).
2. The second respondent Biju agrees to execute a fresh lease deed in favour of the second petitioner Aji Jossy on or before 20.6.2014 to run any business of his choice in the schedule room, for a period of 11 months with effect from 1.7.2014.
3. The second respondent agrees to pay the rent arrears, if any, and to pay an interest free deposit of Rs.19,500/- (Rupees Nineteen Thousand Five hundred only) on or before 5.6.2014 and to pay a monthly rent of Rs.6,500/- (Rupees Six Thousand Five Hundred only) to the second petitioner with effect from 1.7.2014.
4. The second petitioner, Aji Jossy hereby agrees to carry out all necessary repair and other works of the schedule room such as fixing of rolling shutters, truss work in front of the shop room, etc. on or before 20.6.2014.
5. The second respondent Biju hereby agrees to carry out white wash of interior and ceiling and electrical wiring at his own supervision and expenses for the conduct of his business.
6. The second petitioner Aji Jossy agrees to sign and give all necessary documents to the concerned authorities and to pay the security deposit and other expenses for obtaining electricity connection in the schedule room, in her name.
7. The second petitioner agrees to provide all necessary documents to the second respondent Biju enabling him to obtain licence from the concerned authorities in order to conduct his business in the schedule room.
8. The parties agree to renew the lease deed on termination of the lease period, by executing a fresh lease deed, if both parties agree for the same at that time.
9. The second respondent Biju states that respondents 3 to 8 are only formal parties and are not necessary parties for settling the disputes involved in the above case and agrees to file an application for removing them from the party array on or before 30.5.2014 and the second petitioner Aji Jossy agrees that she has no objection for the same.
10. The second petitioner and second respondent agrees that they will not raise any further claim against each other with regard to the subject matter of the above case.”
3. The second revision petitioner is acting as the next friend of the minor third revision petitioner. A certificate as contemplated under Rule 7 of Order XXXII is issued by the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners. We have also granted leave to compromise by the second revision petitioner on behalf of the minor.
The memorandum of settlement arrived at between the parties is recorded and the Rent Control Revision is disposed of in terms of the compromise.
K.T.SANKARAN JUDGE csl A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE JUDGE K.T.SANKARAN & A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JJ.
R.C.R.No.77 of 2012 A Dated this the 4th day of June, 2014 K.T.Sankaran, J.
O R D E R
A settlement agreement was signed by the revision petitioner No.2 and the second respondent. Revision petitioner No.1 is dead.
The first respondent is also dead. It is stated in the agreement that an application will be filed to remove the names of respondents 3 to 8. No such application is seen filed.
2. The second petitioner is the mother of the third petitioner and she is the next friend of the third petitioner. An application for leave is not filed and other requirements under Rule 7 of Order XXXII have not been complied with. The petitioner shall do the needful within two days.
csl Post on 10.6.2014.
K.T.SANKARAN JUDGE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE JUDGE