Joseph vs Graceamma
2021 Latest Caselaw 14056 Ker

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                          PRESENT
        THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN
                             &
          THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.R.ANITHA
 WEDNESDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF JULY 2021 / 16TH ASHADHA, 1943
                  RCREV. NO. 263 OF 2011
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN RCA 22/2005 OF RENT CONTROL
               APPELLATE AUTHORITY, KOTTAYAM
REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT :

         JOSEPH, S/O.THOMAS, PADIYARA HOUSE, KURINMOODU
         BHAGOM, VAZHAPPALLY EAST MURI, VAZHAPPALLY
         VILLAGE.

         BY ADVS.
         SRI.S.MANU
         SMT.K.DEEPA PAYYANUR



RESPONDENTS/ADDL.RESPONDENTS 2 TO 4/LEGAL HEIRS OF THE
DECEASED PETITIONER:

    1    GRACAMMA, W/O.LATE MATHEW JOSEPH, THOPPIL HOUSE,
         VAZHAPPALLY EAST, CHANGANACHERRY TALUK-686 101.

    2    SHALU MATHEW, THOPPIL HOUSE, VAZHAPPALLY EAST
         VILLAGE, CHANGANACHERRY TALUK-686 101.

    3    SHAJU MATHEW, THOPPIL HOUSE, VAZHAPPALLY EAST
         VILLAGE, CHANGANACHERRY TALUK-686 101.

         BY ADVS.
              SRI.K.GOPALAKRISHNA KURUP SR.
              SRI.JIJO PAUL

     THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP           FOR
ADMISSION ON 07.07.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME           DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                               -2-
RCREV. NO. 263 OF 2011



                           ORDER

Anil K. Narendran, J.

This Rent Control Revision is one filed under Section 20

of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 by

the appellant in R.C.A.No.22 of 2005 on the file of the Rent

Control Appellate Authority, Kottayam, which was arising out

of the order dated 21.03.2005 of the Rent Control Court,

Changanacherry in R.C.P.No.13 of 2002.

2. On 05.07.2011, when this revision came up for

admission, this Court admitted the matter on file and issued

notice to the respondents. This Court granted an interim stay

for two months. The said interim order, which was extended

from time to time, was extended until further orders on

21.10.2011.

3. On 04.01.2012, when the matter came up for

consideration, this Court noticed that the learned counsel

appearing for the respondents is no more and no other

counsel entered appearance on behalf of the respondents.

Therefore, this Court directed Registry to take steps to issue

RCREV. NO. 263 OF 2011

urgent notice to the 1st respondent alerting them of the

necessity to engage another counsel for the defence of this

revision.

4. Today, when this revision is taken up for

consideration in the defect list, the learned counsel for the

revision petitioner would submit that the matter has already

been settled between the parties. Moreover, the revision

petitioner is no more. Therefore, the learned counsel would

submit that this revision may be dismissed as not pressed.

Recording the aforesaid submission made by the learned

counsel for the revision petitioner, this Rent Control Revision is

dismissed as not pressed.

Sd/-

ANIL K.NARENDRAN JUDGE

Sd/-

M.R.ANITHA JUDGE

AV/7/7