Revision vs Sainaba (Died)
2021 Latest Caselaw 4799 Ker

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.HARIPRASAD
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 21ST MAGHA,1942
RCRev..No.254 OF 2016

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 27-02-2016 IN RCA 13/2014 OF
RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY COURT, KOTTAYAM.

AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 28-01-2014 IN RCP 29/2011 oF
ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROL COURT, KOTTAYAM.

REVISION PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS 1 TO 5 IN RCA
_& RESPONDENTS 1 TO 5 IN RCP

1 M/S. KRISHNAN NAIR TIMES AND JEWELS PVT. LTD.
REPRESENTED BY HARIKRISHNAN, BUILDING
NO.XIII/594, ERICK MAHAL BUILDING,

OPPOSITE TO MUNICIPAL BUILDING COMPLEX,
T.B. ROAD, KOTTAYAM.

2 K. VENUGOPAL, AGED 67 YEARS, DIRECTOR,
M/S. KRISHNAN NAIR TIMES AND JEWELS PVT. LTD.
BUILDING NO.XIII/594, ERICK MAHAL BUILDING,
OPPOSITE TO MUNICIPAL BUILDING COMPLEX,
T.B. ROAD, KOTTAYAM.

3 VIJAYAKUMAR, AGED 45 YEARS, LEKSHMANA JEWELERY,
BUILDING NO.XIII/594, ERICK MAHAL BUILDING,
OPPOSITE TO MUNICIPAL BUILDING COMPLEX,

T.B. ROAD, KOTTAYAM.

4 ABDUL SALAM, AGED 65 YEARS,
BUILDING NO.XIII/70, ERICK MAHAL BUILDING,
OPPOSITE TO MUNICIPAL BUILDING COMPLEX,
T.B. ROAD, KOTTAYAM.

5 ABDUL KHADER, AGED 65 YEARS, BUILDING
NO.XIII/71, ERICK MAHAL BUILDING,
OPPOSITE TO MUNICIPAL BUILDING COMPLEX,
T.B. ROAD, KOTTAYAM,

BY ADV. SRI.M.NARENDRA KUMAR.

 
 

RCR No.254 of 2016 2

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 4 IN RCA & APPELLANTS 6 & 7 IN
RCA AND PETITIONERS :

* 1

SAINABA, AGED 76 YEARS,
W/O.MUSTHAFA KANI RAWTHER, MUMTAZ, P.H.ROAD,
CEMTERY JUNCTION, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682 018.

ABDUL KASIM, AGED 56 YEARS,
S/O.MUSTHAFA KANI RAWTHER, MUMTAZ, P.H.ROAD,
CEMTERY JUNCTION, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682 018.

YASMIN BECKER, AGED 58 YEARS, W/O.ABOOBEKKER,
M.I.G.HOUISNG COLONY, HOUSE NO.414, PANAMPALLY
NAGAR, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682 034.

WAHEED MUSTHAFA, AGED 50 YEARS, W/O.MOHAMMED
MUSTHAFA, POWETHU PUTHENVEEDU, VAIKOM, RANNI,
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN-689 662.

ALEX VENKADATHU, AGED 82 YEARS, BUILDING
NO.XIII/590, ERICK MAHAL BUILDING, OPPOSITE TO
MUNICIPAL BUILDING COMPLEX, T.B. ROAD, KOTTAYAM.

ANNAMMA ALEX, AGED 77 YEARS, BUILDING
NO.XIII/590, ERICK MAHAL BUILDING, OPPOSITE TO
MUNICIPAL BUILDING COMPLEX, T.B. ROAD, KOTTAYAM.

* THE IST RESPONDENT DIED. R2 TO R4 WHO ARE
ALREADY IN THE PARTY ARRAY, ARE HER LEGAL
REPRESENTATIVES. THIS IS RECORDED VIDE
ORDER DATED 29-05-2017 IN MEMO DATED 20-12-
2016 BEARING CF NO.4145/2016.

Rl TO R4 BY ADVS.SRI.JACOB P.ALEX
SRI.JOSEPH P.ALEX.

THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
10.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

 
 

RCR No.254 of 2016 3

A.HARIPRASAD & P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J J.

 

R.C.R No.254 of 2016
&
|.A No.2 of 2019

 

Dated this the 410" day of February, 2021

ORDER

A.HARIPRASAD, J Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and respondents.

2. Revision petitioners/tenants aggrieved by an order of eviction passed by the Rent Control Court and Rent Control Appellate Authority under Section 11(4)(iv) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (in short 'the Act') have approached this Court. While the matter is pending here, the parties have settled the disputes between them and filed a compromise petition under Order XXIII Rule 3 C.P.C setting out the

terms and conditions.

3 On perusal of the terms of the compromise, we find that they have lawfully adjusted their claims. In the meantime, the revision petitioners filed an affidavit dated 12-10-2019 stating that cheque for

Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakhs only) given in terms of the compromise

could not be encashed and therefore the petitioners requested not to

record the compromise.

4. Learned counsel submitted that the revision petitioners are withdrawing their contentions in the affidavit and they have no objection in

recording the compromise.

In the result, the revision petition is disposed of in terms of the compromise. We record the compromise. It shall form part of the order of this Court.

All pending interlocutory applications will stand closed.

A. HARIPRASAD, JUDGE.

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, JUDGE

Feletoe: élxiia

fn @ WG AN AY BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH Av COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM

LANO. A, /2019

RCR. NO. 254/2016

(AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN RCA NO. ...../2014 OF RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY, KOTTAYAM.)

M/S KRISHNAN NAIR TIMES AND JEWELS PVT. LTD.

& OTHERS: RIVISION PETITIONERS

Vs

SAINABA (DIED) & OTHERS : RESPONDENTS

COMPROMISE PETITION FILED UNDER ORDER XXIII RULE 3 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE.

" Adv. M . NARENDRAKUMAR Counsel for Revision petitioners

TOME Adv. JACOB. P. ALEX Counsel for Respondents 2 to 4

Petal CK Zwl-

Osv\ yale

I

BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM | /

L.A NO. a /2019 RCR. NO. 254/2016

(AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN RCA NO. /2014 OF RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY, KOTTAYAM.)

M/S KRISHNAN NAIR

TIMES AND JEWELS

PVT. LTD. & OTHERS : RIVISION PETITIONERS Vs .

SAINABA (DIED) & OTHERS : RESPONDENTS

THE COMPROMISE PETITION SUBMITTED BY: REVISION PETITIONERS

1. M/S. KRISHNAN NAIR, TIMES AND JEWELS PVT. LTD., BUILDING NO XIII/594, ERICK MAHAL BUILDING, OPPOISTE TO MANIPAL BUILDING COMPLEX, T.B.ROAD, KOTTAYAM REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR K. VENUGOPAL.

2. K. VENUGOPALAN , AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, DIRECTOR, M/S. KRISHNAN NAIR, TIMES AND JEWELS PVT. LTD., BUILDING NO XITI/594, ERICK MAHAL

BUILDING, OPPOISTE TO MANIPAL BUILDING COMPLEX, T.B.ROAD, KOTTAYAM.

3. VDAYAKUMAR, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, LEKSHMI JEWELLERY, BUILDING NO. XIII/593, ERIC MAHAL BUILDING COMPLEX, OPPOSITE MANIPAL _BUILDING COMPLEX, T.B ROAD, KOTTAYAM.

4. ABDUL SALAM, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, BUILDING NO, XIII/70 , ERICK MAHAL BUILDING, OPPOSITE TO MANIPAL BUILDING COMPLEX, T.B ROAD, KOTTAYA

Revision Petitioners 1 : Respondents 2 wrote t=

5. ABDUL KHADER, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, BUILDING NO. XIII/71, ERICK MAHAL BUILDING , OPPOSITE MANIPAL BUILDING COMPLEX, T.B. ROAD, KOTTAYAM.

AND

RESPONDENTS

2 ABDUL KASIM, AGED 59 YEARS, S/O MUSTHAFA KANI RAWTHER , MUMTAZ PH ROAD , CEMFERY JUNCTION, ERNAKULAM PIN, 682018

3. YASMIN BECKER, AGED 62 YEARS W/O ABOOBEKKER , M.I.G HOUSING COLONY, HOUSE NO. 414, PANAMPALLY NAGAR, ERNAKULAM PIN 682034,

4. WAHEEDA MUSTAFA, AGED 54 YEARS, W/O MOHAMMED MUSTAPHA , POWETHU PUTHEN VEEDU, VAIKOM, RANNI PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN 689 662

COMPROMISE PETITION FILED UNDER ORDER XXIII RULE 3 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE.

The Revision petitioners No. 1 to 5 are the tenants and the Respondents No. 2 to 4 are the landlords of Erick Mahal Building in Kottayam Municipality and whereas the deceased Respondent No. 1 is the mother of Respondents No. 2 to 4 who had the life interest over the petition schedule buildings and whereas the Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 are the only legal representatives of the deceased 1* Respondent and the same has been recorded in the above case. The Revision petitioners are the tenants of the building bearing Door No. XIII/594, XIII/593, XIII/70, XIII/71 of Kottayam Municipality respectively. Whereas the subject matter of the above Revision petition has been settled between the Revision

petitioners 1 to 5/Tenants and the Respondents No. 2 to 4 /Landlords amicably as follows:-

Ok Revision Petitioners we . Respondents 2 Yodel

Ne 1 lo

& [pQakedha

TERMS & CONDITIONS

The Revision petitioners 1 to 5 have surrendered the vacant possession of the tenanted premises to the respondents No. 2 to 4 on the execution of the petition.

The Revision petitioners 1 to 5 have relinquished their rights and claims over the tenanted premises and the claim for re~allotment of the petition schedule buildings on receiving considerations and for which separate agreements were entered into between the parties.

The Agreements dated 18-03-2019 and 03-04-2019 executed between the parties regarding the terms and conditions and obligations with regard to the surrender of the tenanted premises is binding on all the parties thereof .

The Revision Petitioners 1 to 5 have received -- reasonable and sufficient consideration as stated in Agreements dated 18-03-2019 and 03-04-2019 from the respondents No. 2 to 4 for relinquishing their rights and claims over the petition schedule buildings . Since landlords / respondents 2 to 4 have given sufficient consideration which is beneficial to Revision Petitioners/tenants and therefore tenants are not interested to occupy the building after reconstruction and no other claims will be made under BLRC Act. The need to occupy the building does not survive and we hereby surrender the same.

The Revision petitioners 1 to 5 hereby agree that they have no right of tenancy or any other right over the petition schedule buildings under Sec. 11(4) (IV) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control ) Act 1965 and they have voluntarily surrendered the tenanted premises to the Respondents No. 2 to 4.

The Revision petitioners No. 1 to 5 hereby agree that they will not raise any claim

over the petition schedule buildings by virtue of the tenancy right which they had over the buildings earlier.

The security amount received by the predecessors of respondents 2 to 4 from the

Revision petitioners 1 and 2 is returned and the receipt of the said amount is hereby acknowledged .

Revision Petitioners ws Respondents 2 wedi

2 we 3 Vet "

Soho:

og Sa + [oahercdhs

8.

Hence, it is humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to dispose the above Revision petition in terms of this Compromise Petition and a Judgment may be passed accordingly and the above compromise petition may be formed the part of the judgment.

Dated this the 2" day of April 2019

Revision Petitioners.

1.M/s. Krishnan Nair Times and Jewels Pvt. Ltd.

2. K. Venugopal . ]

3. Vijayakumar ai Y tt a.

4 Abdul Salam io

5 Abdul Khader.

Counsel for Revision petitioners Shri . M. Narandrakumar Respondents No. 2 Abdul Kassim Ayvralrdrda = 3 Yasmin Becker

a oe 4 Waheeda Musthafa | A cohsee Se ;

Counsel for Respondents 2 to 4 Shri, Jacob Ko