Leelamma Joy, v. Kunjunjamma Mathew
Case brief
What is this about?
In a rent control revision petition filed by a landlord, the High Court noted that the matter had been settled by the parties via a deed dated 17.01.2023. Upon accepting this settlement, the court closed the revision without making interim orders on the eviction petition.
What did the court decide?
The revision petition was closed as the parties had entered into a settlement deed dated 17.01.2023, which was accepted and attached to the record.
What the court decided
A compact analysis
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
RCR24/2020
IN THE HIGH Count oF RERAIA AT ERN:azrtylAM
PRESRE
THE HONouRABIIE DR. rusTIch= A. K. JzlYASANKZLRAN itAiDIAR
&
THE HONouRABId= MR.4uSTICE iooHaeo4ED NIAs c.p.
tiEDRESDA¥, IRE 9" Day oF A17coST 2023 / 18" sRAVAlm, 1945
RCREV. NO. 24 0F 2020
RCA 57/2ol6 oF THE ADDITlomAI. RENT coNTRol, APPEI.IATE AUTHORITr,
Prm
Rep 1/2015 0F TEIE RENT CONTROL. CotJRT, PAIA
REVIS ION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT/EtiTITI0NER :
LEELAMMA JOY,
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
Leelamma Joy
- respondent
Kunjunjamma Mathew
- respondent
Benny Rathe w
Coram
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court