Disposed

Biju Varghese v. Dr.P.S.George

Kerala HC18 Nov 2021RCRev./52/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a rent control revision petition concerning eviction. The parties had reached a settlement via a memorandum of agreement during mediation, wherein the tenant paid arrears and vacated the premise. The Court recorded this settlement and disposed of the writ petition accordingly.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of in terms of the settlement agreement dated 27.10.2021 reached between the parties.

Biju Varghese Vs Dr.P.S.George — Landlord and Tenant | 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

THURSDAY, THE 18^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021 / 27TH KARTHIKA,

¶7

1943

¶8

R.C.REV. NO. 52 OF 2020

¶9

AGAINST THE ORDER IN R.C.P No.19 OF 2013 OF THE RENT CONTROL COURT (MUNSIFF), CHANGANACHERRY,KOTTAYAM AND JUDGMENT IN R.C.A NO.38 OF 2014 OF RENT CONTROL APPELLATE

¶10

AUTHORITY-IV(ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE),KOTTAYAM

¶11

REVISION PETITIONER:

¶12

BIJU VARGHESE AGED 50 YEARS

¶13

S/O.VARGHESE, MULAKKUPADAM HOUSE, L.E.NAGAR POST-686106, CHETHIPUZHA VILLAGE, CHANGANASSERY TALUK.

¶14

BY ADVS. MATHEW JOHN (K) SRI.ABY J AUGUSTINE

¶15

RESPONDENTS:

¶16

1 DR.P.S.GEORGE, AGED 68 YEARS, S/O.SAMUEL, PEEDIECKAL HOUSE, VEROOR POST-686104, CHETHIPUZHA VILLAGE, CHANGANASSERY TALUK.

¶17

2 DR.LEELAMMA GEORGE, AGED 66 YEARS, W/O.DR.P.S.GEORGE, PEEDIECKAL HOUSE, VEROOR POST-686104, CHETHIPUZHA VILLAGE, CHANGANASSERY TALUK.

¶18

BY ADV ALEX.M.SCARIA

¶19

THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18.11.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

R.C.R.No.52 of 2020

O R D E R

Anil K. Narendran, J

The petitioner is the respondent-tenant in R.C.P.No.19 of 2013 on the file of the Rent Control Court (Munsiff), Changanassery, a petition filed by the respondents herein- landlords under Sections 11(2)(b) and 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, seeking eviction of the tenant from the petition schedule shop room. The tenant filed counter, opposing the order of eviction sought for in the Rent Control Petition. By the order dated 30.09.2014, the Rent Control Court ordered joint trial in R.C.P.Nos 19 and 21 of 2013, relating to adjacent shop rooms. By the order dated 30.09.2014, the Rent Control Court ordered eviction of the tenant from the petition schedule shop room under Sections 11(2) (b) and 11(3) of the Act and the tenant was directed to handover vacant possession of the shop room to the landlords, within a period of three months from the date of that order, failing which, the landlords can take vacant possession through the process of court and they were allowed to realise cost from the tenant and his assets. Challenging the order of eviction granted by the Rent Control Court, the tenant filed R.C.A No.38 of 2014 before the

¶25

¶26

R.C.R.No.52 of 2020

¶27

Additional Rent Control Appellate Authority (Additional District Judge), Kottayam, under Section 18(1)(b) of the Act. That appeal ended in dismissal by the judgment dated 18.11.2019 (wrongly titled as order) of the Appellate Authority. Challenging the order of the Rent Control Court dated 30.09.2014 and the judgment of the Appellate Authority dated 18.11.2019, the tenant has filed this Rent Control Revision, before this Court, invoking the provisions under Section 20 of the Act.

¶28

On 02.03.2020, when this Rent Control Revision came up for admission, this Court admitted the matter on file and issued notice to the respondents by speed post. In I.A.No.1 of 2020, this Court granted an interim stay of the execution of the order of eviction for a period of one month. Thereafter, on 13.09.2021, the said interim order was revived and extended for a period of two months.

¶29

On 11.10.2021, when this Revision came up for consideration, the respondents-landlords submitted that the arrears of rent upto the year 2013 alone comes to Rs.1,12,672/and that, the landlords are prepared to waive 50% of the arrears of rent till date, if the tenant is prepared to give vacant possession of the petition schedule shop room.

¶30

¶31

R.C.R.No.52 of 2020

¶32

On 22.10.2021, the learned counsel for the petitioner-

¶33

tenant and also the learned counsel for the respondents-landlords submitted that the parties have arrived at a settlement, as per which the tenant has agreed to give vacant possession of the petition scheduled building to the landlords, after making a payment of Rs.30,000/- towards arrears of rent and that the parties shall appear before the Mediation Sub Centre, Changanassery for settlement of the dispute by mediation. Considering the above submission made by the learned counsel on both sides, both parties were directed to appear before the Mediation Sub Centre, Changanassery on 27.10.2021 at 11.00 a.m.

¶34

Today, when the matter is taken up for consideration, the learned counsel on both sides would submit that the matter has already been settled between the parties and a memorandum of agreement dated 27.10.2021, under Section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, read with Rule 24 of the Civil Procedure (Alternative Dispute Resolution) Rules, 2008, has also been entered into. A copy of the memorandum of agreement is placed on record along with the covering letter dated 02.11.2021 of the Co-ordinator (Munsiff), Mediation Sub Centre, Changanassery.

¶35

The learned counsel for the petitioner-tenant and also

¶36

¶37

R.C.R.No.52 of 2020

¶38

the learned counsel for the respondents-landlords would submit that, in terms of that settlement, the tenant has already paid an amount of Rs.30,000/- against arrears of rent and gave vacant possession of the petition schedule shop room to the landlords on 27.10.2021 and the key of the shop room has also been handed over.

¶39

Recording the said fact, this Rent Control Revision is disposed of in terms of the settlement recorded in the memorandum of agreement dated 27.10.2021, which will form part of this order.

¶40

Sd/- ANIL K.NARENDRAN JUDGE

¶41

Sd/- P.G. AJITHKUMAR JUDGE

¶42

¶43

punoer! . I. DTp.s.pi€9zpe RuronedJ..a;orvat ct . Dt' L-chmhrty

Cry.

'.i

Efr~ TL th`b L EL# i®v{ tc-a-|cll\

rdulh R3T<i

frdrinle :

cJ---. RAtry -J.. wl

n±s#f i 50 8

CHAN6ANACLIERRY

4 . Di[8¥R:len. MEDIATION^cENTRE,

¶56

¶57

lvIEMORANDUM OF AGF]EEMENT UNDER SECTION 89 0F THE CODE OF THE CIVIL PPOCEDURE F}EAD WITH RULES 24 0F THE CIVIL PF}OCEDUF}E

¶58

(ALTEF{NATIVE DISPUTE F}ESOLUTION) RULES, 2008

¶59

ft+howte«.'M.Sqe°bT

¶60

:£;p;:sp#_Qim=#RE::o#=#B,drvarfu 1. The aforesaid Sujt/s Petition/s, AppeLal/s, CompJaint were referred to mediation for resolving the r):;Srpeuetdetboet#ee:o|,;hwejnpga:t::::natnhde;3o°nudr:t:o:fsmedlatlon„:yhaveresolvedtheirdisputeandha¥e

1il,

.cfi`--

I,/`` ,

lrrJiew of the aforesaid agreement entered into between the parties, the parties pray that the Suiv S; Petition/s, Appeavs be decreed/dismissed/disposed of, in terms of the aforesaid agreement.

¶66

In view of the aforesaid agreement, the Plaintiff/s, Appellant/s pray/s for refund of the full institution Fee.

¶67

_ 'or >1

¶68

1. Partieswillappearon ....... fl9 Decree in terms of the above said agreement.

¶69

before the Hon'ble Court for passing Orders/

¶70

``J"QQqits-

¶71

Plaintiff/s, Petitione#J' Dry. P' i qe©s£§:Pine:]#jDashtAppea>nyshaam~4Q# try: i p.O.A hchifty rt Petitioner/s, Appellents Aasn##fro.

¶72

vERiFicATroN

¶73

We the parties above named, do hereby solemnly state and declare that what is contained in

¶74

are true to the best of our knowledge, informaparagraphs I to rl tion and belief.

¶75

PlaiDtifife, Petitioner/s
place : C-
AppeJtems,
Complainant
Date: dl_\o~i.
'.art. P. I. q-
I . DT Le±~ rty.e¥<br>bpRL=spO#.L;dry -_-i€=
Defendarfe, F]espondends
Aco#sed.
a,i^ vdralL.L± .

¶76

_, i- -i- .

¶77

-` -, 1 -u

Biju Varghese v. Dr.P.S.George

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Biju Varghese v. Dr.P.S.George

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

R.N.Krishnaraj Vs State of Kerala

Suo Motu Vs the Travancore Devaswom Board

Kurunthaliyimmal Narayani Vs Pothullathil Ayissa

Rajan Vs Koyatty

Kuniyil Abdulla, Vs Abdul Haris.K.

Kuniyil Abdulla Vs Sadhik @Janusadhick