Disposed

Family Optics v. Agro Manures and Chemicals (India) Pvt. Ltd.

Kerala HC4 Dec 2021OP (RC)/99/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Tenants filed a rent control revision petition challenging an interim eviction order. The High Court disposed of the petition noting that the parties had settled their dispute via mediation, resulting in a memorandum of settlement wherein tenants agreed to pay arrears and vacate the premises.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed in terms of the memorandum of settlement dated 22.11.2021 entered into between the parties.

Family Optics Vs Agro Manures and Chemicals (India) Pvt. Ltd. — Partition | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR

¶6

SATURDAY, THE 4^TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2021/13TH AGRAHAYANA, 1943

¶7

OP (RC) NO. 99 OF 2021

¶8

AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 14.10.2019 IN IA 4278 OF 2019 IN R.C.P.NO.16 OF 2019 OF THE RENT CONTROLLER (III ADDITIONAL

¶9

MUNSIFF), ERNAKULAM

¶10

PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS IN I.A.NO.4278/2019 IN RCP NO.16/2019:

¶11

1 FAMILY OPTICS DOOR NO.XXXII/637 T, CUSAT JUNCTION, KALAMASSERRY, KOCHI - 682033, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER - MR. GEORGE JOSEPH.

¶12

2 GEORGE JOSEPH S/O. GEEVARGHESE JOSEPH, VAYALIRAKATHU, ANGADICAL SOUTH P.O., KODUMON, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT - 691 555.

¶13

3 DIN RAJ LAXMAN ,AGED 51 YEARS S/O. T.L.LAXMAN, M/S FAMILY OPTICS, DOOR NO.XXXII/637 T, CUSAT JUNCTION, KALAMASSERRY, KOCHI - 682033, (RESIDING AT DOOR NO.8D, ASSET HOMES, URBAN CRESCENT, MAMANGALAM, ERNAKULAM).

¶14

BY ADVS.V.PHILIP MATHEW GIBI.C.GEORGE E.RADHAKRISHNAN

¶15

-2-

¶16

OP (RC) NO. 99 OF 2021

¶17

RESPONDENT/PETITIONER IN I.A.NO.4278/2019 IN RCP NO.16/2019:

¶18

M/S.AGRO MANURES AND CHEMICALS (INDIA) PVT LTD. PUTTUMANOOR, PUTHENCRUZ, ERNAKULAM - 682308, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR - MR. ANILKUMAR K. S.

¶19

BY ADVS.BABU KARUKAPADATH M.A.VAHEEDA BABU P.U.VINOD KUMAR ARYA RAGHUNATH VAISAKHI V. T.M.MUHAMMED MUSTHAQ MOHAMED HISHAM P KARUKAPADATH WAZIM BABU

¶20

THIS OP (RENT CONTROL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04.12.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

-3-

¶22

OP (RC) NO. 99 OF 2021

¶23

JUDGMENT

¶24

Anil K. Narendran, J.

¶25

The petitioners, who are the respondents–tenants in R.C.P No.16 of 2019 on the file of the Rent Control Court (Additional Munsiff-III), Ernakulam, a petition filed by the respondent herein–landlord under Sections 11(2)(b) and 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, seeking eviction of the tenants from the petition schedule building. In that Rent Control Petition, the landlord filed I.A.No.4278 of 2019, a petition under Section 12 of the Act, seeking an order directing the tenants to pay admitted arrears of rent, within a time frame. In that interlocutory application, the Rent Control Court passed an order dated 14.10.2019, invoking its powers under Sections 12(1) and (2) of the Act. Challenging that order, the tenants filed R.C.A.No.77 of 2019 before the Rent Control Appellate Authority (Principal District Judge), Ernakulam, invoking the provisions under Section 18(1)(b) of the Act. That appeal stands dismissed by the impugned judgment dated 13.01.2020, holding that such an appeal is not maintainable,

¶26

-4-

¶27

OP (RC) NO. 99 OF 2021

¶28

in view of the law laid down by a Division Bench of this Court in Sidharthan v. Hassankutty Haji [1994 (2) KLT 419] .

¶29

The petitioners originally filed R.C.R.No.169 of 2020 before this Court challenging the order dated 14.10.2019 of the Rent Control Court in I.A.No.4278 of 2019. By the order dated 17.09.2021, that Rent Control Revision was dismissed as not maintainable. In the said order, this Court made it clear that the only remedy open to a person feeling aggrieved by an order passed by the Rent Control Court or the Appellate Authority, as the case may be, in exercise of its powers under Sections 12(1) and 12(2) of the Act, is to challenge that order invoking Article 227 of the Constitution of India, seeking interference to the extent permissible in exercise of the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court.

¶30

Thereafter, the tenants filed this original petition, in

¶31

which the learned counsel for the respondent-landlord took notice on admission on 21.10.2021.

¶32

During the pendency of this original petition, the

¶33

matter was referred for mediation before the Ernakulam

¶34

-5-

¶35

OP (RC) NO. 99 OF 2021

¶36

Mediation Centre, in the premises of this Court.

¶37

Today, when the matter is taken up for consideration, the learned counsel on both sides would submit that the matter is settled through mediation and the memorandum of settlement dated 22.11.2021 has been entered into between the parties.

¶38

The Terms of the memorandum of settlement dated

¶39

22.11.2021 read thus;

¶40

“i. The respondent has agreed to accept and the petitioners have agreed to pay a sum of Rs.28,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Eight Lakhs only) first payment should be made on or before 15.12.2021, Rs.15,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs only), second payment amount Rs.7,00,000/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs only) on or before 30.12.2021 and final balance Rs.6,00,000/- (Rupees Six Lakhs only) on or before 15.01.2022 as full and final settlement of all amounts due from the petitioners. Petitioners would not be liable to pay any further amount in connection with the lease of the premises after such payment is made.

¶41

ii. If the above said sum of Rs.28 Lakhs is not paid as agreed within the prescribed period

¶42

-6-

¶43

OP (RC) NO. 99 OF 2021

¶44

respondent would be entitled to realize an amount of Rs.52,47,416/- with 6% from petitioners and their assets.

¶45

iii. Petitioners would withdraw O.S.No.1289 of 2018 and R.C.A.No.8 of 2021. Respondent would not further proceed with O.S.No.97 of 2021 and E.P.No.17 of 2021 in view of the settlement.

¶46

iv. Petitioners would vacate the leased premises on or before 30.11.2021. Petitioners would pay all charges including electricity and other statutory payments if any.

¶47

v. Necessary petitions or applications would be filed before the Sub Court, District Court and Munsiff Court for termination of proceedings and refund of court fees by the competent persons among the parties. Petitioners have no objection in refund of court fees to respondent in O.S.No.97 of 2021 pending before Sub Court, Ernakulam.”

¶48

The learned counsel for the petitioners-tenants

¶49

would submit that in terms of the settlement, the tenants have already vacated the petition schedule building.

¶50

Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel on both sides, this original petition is disposed of, in terms of the memorandum of of settlement dated 22.11.2021

¶51

-7-

¶52

OP (RC) NO. 99 OF 2021

¶53

entered into between the parties, which forms part of this

¶54

judgment.

¶55

Sd/-

¶56

ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JUDGE

¶57

Sd/-

¶58

P.G. AJITHKUMAR, JUDGE

¶59

AV/10/12

¶60

-8-

¶61

OP (RC) NO. 99 OF 2021

¶62

APPENDIX OF OP (RC) 99/2021

¶63

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶64

Exhibit P1	COPY OF R.C.P.NO.16/2019 AS SERVED ON THE PETITIONERS FROM COURT.
Exhibit P2	COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE PETITIONERS IN R.C.P.NO.16/2019.
Exhibit P3	COPY OF I.A.NO.4278/2019 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT IN R.C.P.NO.16/2019 UNDER SECTION 12 OF THE RENT CONTROL ACT.
Exhibit P4	COPY OF OBJECTION FILED BY THE PETITIONERS IN I.A.NO.4278/2019.
Exhibit P5	COPY OF BY ORDER DATED 14.10.2019 PASSED BY THE RENT CONTROL COURT, ERNAKULAM IN I.A.NO.4278/2019 IN R.C.P.NO.16/2019.
Exhibit P6	COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 13.01.2020 PASSED BY THE DISTRICT COURT AND RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY, ERNAKULAM.
Exhibit P7	COPY OF STATEMENT FILED BY THE PETITIONERS IN I.A.NO.4278/2019 IN R.C.P.NO.16/2019.
Exhibit P8	COPY OF ORDER DATED 12.08.2020 PASSED BY THE RENT CONTROL COURT, ERNAKULAM IN R.C.P.16/2019.
Exhibit P9	COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 17.09.2021 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN R.C.R.NO.169/2020.

¶65

¶66

¶67

BEFORETHEHONOURABLEHIGHCOURT0F KERALAATERNAKULAM

¶68

Petitioners

¶69

Family Optics & Others

¶70

Vs.

¶71

AgroManures andchemicals (India)PvtLtd : Respondent

¶72

BEPQB±IrmDLE±z±I±Ej±ED±A±QB ADEBAB±

¶73

Mediated; matter is settled and

¶74

termsofAgreementareattachedherewith.

¶75

Dated this the 22nd day of November, 2021.

¶76

-. : ._` Mediator Ernakulam Mediation Centl.e

¶77

BEFORE IRE EON BIB HGH COURT OF KERALA ATERP-

¶78

O.p.aL c.t.NO. 99 Of 2021

¶79

Petitioners/Ai)oellants/ Restiondcnts : -

¶80

M/s. Family Optics, Door No. XXXII/637 T, CUSAT Junction, Kalamasserry, Kochi-682033 Represented by its Managing Partner - M. George Joseph

¶81

George Joseph, S/o. Geevarghese Joseph, Vayalirckathu, Angadical south P.O, Kodumon, Pathanamthitta District -691555

¶82

¶83

Din Raj Laxman, aged 51, S/o.T.L.Laxman, M/s.Family Optics, Dcor No.XXXII/637 T, CUSAT Junction, Kalamasserry, Kochi-682033.

¶84

(Residing at Door No.8D, Asset Homes, Urfun Crescent, Mamangalam, Ernakulam. )

¶85

-Vs-

¶86

Restiondent/Resi)ondent/Petitioner:

¶87

M/s. Agro Manures and Chemicals (India) Pvt Ltd, Puttumancor, Puthencruz, Ernakulam - 682308 represented by its Managing Director-M.Anil Kumar.K.S

¶88

¶89

nmMORANDUM oF sE'IvllEnmNT

¶90

Petitioners are the tenants of room bearing number Door No. XXXll/637 T, at Cusat Junction, Kalamassery owned by respondent. Respondent filed R.C. P. No. 16/2019 before Rent Control Court, Emckulam for evicting the Petitioners. The Third Additional Munsiff and Rent Controller Ernakulani passed an Order dated 14-10-2019 in I.A No. 4278/2019 in RC.P. No.

¶91

for ,J`` .:R0 h/, ,_ |;Ijp rs

¶92

ke'aashate#:g::::n#;{2:;e:,;`:atoncent'e ir

¶93

¶94

16/2019 under Section 12 (1) and (2) of the Kerala buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 directing Petitioners to remit/deposit Rs.14,92,371/-as admitted arrears of rent. The O.P (RC) is filed against that Order.

¶95

Petitioners filed 0. S. No. 1289/2018 before Muusiff Court, Emakulam for injunction restraining respondent and others from forcefully evicting them from the building.

¶96

Respondent has filed O.S.No.97/2021 before the Sub-Court, Emakulam against Petitioners for realization of Rs. 47, 21,075/-. Both the above Suits are pending.R.C.A.8/2021 and E.P.No. 17/2021 are also pending before 11 nd Additional District Court, Emakularn and Munsiff Court, Emakulaln.

¶97

Petitioners and respondents have decided to amicably settle all disputes raised in the above said proceedings. Parties have decided to conclude an legal proceedings between them arising out of and in connection with the above said lease on the following temis and conditions.

¶98

¶99

i. The respondent has agreed to accept and the Petitioners have agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 28, 00,000/-(Rupees Twenty Eight Lakhs only) first payment should be made on or before 15.12.2021, Rs 1500000/-(Rupees fifteen lakhs only, second payment amount Rs 700000/-(Rupees seven lakhs only) on or before 30-12-2021 and final balance Rs.600000/- ( Rupees six lakhs only) on or before 15-012022 as full and final settlement of all amounts due from the Petitioners. Petitioners' would not be liable to pay any further

¶100

i:Or ,1 :R01\, , {1[r.S

¶101

KeTa.SfaLe#:g:#;:;:u.:g2CK:e:,;\;giv`ncen"

¶102

amount in connection with the lease of the premises after such payment is made.

¶103

ii. If the above said sum of Rs. 28 Lakhs is not paid as agreed within the preseribed period respondent would be entitled to realize an amount of Rs.52,47,416/- with 6% from Petitioners and their assets.

¶104

iii. Petitioners would withdraw O.S.No. 1289/2018 and

¶105

R.C.A.No.8/2021. Respondent would not further proceed with O.S.No.97/202l and E.P.No.17/2021 in view of the settlement.

¶106

¶107

1V.

¶108

Petitioners would vacate the leased premises on or before 30-112021. Petitioners would pay all charges including electricity and other statutory payments if any.

¶109

V. Necessary Petitions or applications would be filed before the Sub Court, District Court and Munsiff Court for termination of proceedings and refund of Court fees by the competent persons among the parties. Petitioners have no objection in refund of court fees to respondent in O.S No 97/21 pending before Subcourt Emakulam.

¶110

Dated this the 22th day

¶111

-:-:---=.-.-.-I.---I-.Sit::;:-:.:---

¶112

•... I

¶113

M/s. Family Optics,

¶114

M/s. Agro Manffi'ds" and Chericals andia) Pvt Ltd, represcntcd by its Managing DirectorM.Anil Kumar.K.S

¶115

George Joseph,

¶116

¶117

c PTO )

¶118

Kera\asate#:g::::;:u.:::{2CK:e:,;`;a""""

\rl

ARVA&afw

Counsel for the Respondent

¶123

¶124

KeTalaStateMediationandConclliationCentre High Court Of Kerala Kochi -682 031

¶125

•`j

Family Optics v. Agro Manures and Chemicals (India) Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Family Optics v. Agro Manures and Chemicals (India) Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Aseera, Vs Sr. Jane Augustine

M/S.Fluid and Electrolytes (P) Ltd. Vs M/S.Parallel Bottle Suppliers

M/S.Fluid & Electrolytes (P) Ltd. Vs M/S.Parallel Bottle Suppliers

V.Radhakrishnan Vs Venugopal Pazhoor

Prasanth K.P., Vs Kunhabdulla

T.K.Muhammed Ali Vs Abdul Jaleel K.M.