Skip to content


K.A.Abdul Azeez Vs. K.A.Abdul Latheef - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtKerala High Court
Decided On
Judge
AppellantK.A.Abdul Azeez
RespondentK.A.Abdul Latheef
Excerpt:
.....district, pin-689622. by adv. sri.john joseph(roy) by adv. sri.titus joseph by adv. benny a.j this rent control revision having been finally heard on2502-2014, the court on the same day passed the following: k.t.sankaran & p.ubaid,jj.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ r.c.r. no.251 of 2013 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ dated this the 25th february, 2014 order k.t.sankaran,j.the respondent filed r.c.p. no.2 of 2011 on the file of the rent control court, chengannur against the revision petitioner under sections 11 (2) (b) and 11 (3) of the kerala buildings (lease and rent control) act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as 'the act' for short). the rent control petition was allowed by the order dated 30th november,2012 and the rent control petition was allowed under sections 11 (2) (b) and 11 (3) of the act. the tenant.....
Judgment:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.UBAID TUESDAY, THE25H DAY OF FEBRUARY20146TH PHALGUNA, 1935 RCRev..No. 251 of 2013 () -------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER

IN RCP22011 of MUNSIFF COURT,CHENGANNUR REVISION PETITIONER(S)/RESPONDENT: -------------------------------------------- K.A.ABDUL AZEEZ, AGED46YEARS S/O.ABDUL KABEER KOCHENNATH BUILDING FROM KOCHENNATH PUTHEN PURAYIL HOUSE KURATTISSERY MURI, MANNAR GRAMA PANCHAYATH KURATTISSERY VILLAGE, MANNAR POST OFFICE LIMITS CHENGANNUR TALUK IN ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN-689622. BY ADVS.SRI.B.RENJITHKUMAR SMT.C.SINDHU (PLAVILAIL) RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT/PETITIONER: ------------------------------------------------- K.A.ABDUL LATHEEF,, AGED55YEARS S/O ABDUL KABEER, KOCHENNATH PUTHEN PURAYIL HOUSE KURATTISSERY MURI, MANNAR GRAMA PANCHAYATH KURATTISSERY VILLAGE, MANNAR POST OFFICELIMITS CHENGANNUR TALUK IN ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN-689622. BY ADV. SRI.JOHN JOSEPH(ROY) BY ADV. SRI.TITUS JOSEPH BY ADV. BENNY A.J THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON2502-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN & P.UBAID,JJ.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ R.C.R. No.251 of 2013 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 25th February, 2014 ORDER

K.T.Sankaran,J.

The respondent filed R.C.P. No.2 of 2011 on the file of the Rent Control Court, Chengannur against the revision petitioner under Sections 11 (2) (b) and 11 (3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short). The Rent Control Petition was allowed by the order dated 30th November,2012 and the Rent Control Petition was allowed under Sections 11 (2) (b) and 11 (3) of the Act. The tenant challenged the order of the Rent Control Court in R.C.A No.5 of 2013 on the file of the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Mavelikara. In that appeal, the revision petitioner/tenant filed I.A No.181 of 2013 for stay of further proceedings. The Appellate Authority granted an order of interim stay on condition of deposit of arrears of rent at the rate of 2500/- from October, 2008 till the date of the order. The revision petitioner/tenant has challenged in this revision the RCR No.251 of 2013 2 interim order passed by the Appellate Authority.

2. The parties were referred for mediation as per the order dated 3.12.2013. It is submitted that the disputes and differences were settled between the parties and a memorandum of agreement dated 13th February, 2014 was executed and signed by the parties in the presence of their counsel. The terms of the agreement are the following: "1. It is agreed by the parties that the petition schedule portion is part of the building constructed on the land of about one 'ARE' comprised in re-survey Nos.171/3 & 173/4 of Kuruttessery village, Mannar Taluk, Chengannoor and obtained by virtue of the settlement deed No.1329/1998 of SRO, Mannar. The building is in ward No.4 of Mannar Panchayat and the number of the petition schedule shop rooms is 283 C along with the 1st floor portion. The building is 3 storied building with the ground, 1st and 2nd floor and to settle the matter finally avoiding a partition claim in future the parties have agreed that the respondent will be given the 2nd floor portion of the shop room above room No.283 C by the petitioner herein.

2. Now the southern separation wall of the room of the building portion (northern) allotted to the respondent is not constructed on the first and second floor and lie in common with the rest of the building portion, it is agreed by the respondent that he will construct the said wall on the same level as it stands on the ground portion of the shop room No.283 C. It is also agreed that a contractor will be assigned with the work which will be carried out under the super vision of the petitioner and RCR No.251 of 2013 3 respondent without creating any hurdles for the petitioner. The expense to be incurred for the construction of the southern separation wall of the first floor and second floor portions above room No.283 C in consonance with the ground floor wall will be met by the respondent herein. It is also agreed that the appurtenant land of the said northern portion will belong to the respondent and that the rest of the building on the southern portion and appurtenant land shall belong to the petitioner.

3. It is also agreed by the parties that they are at liberty to enjoy their respective portions of the buildings without interference by the other in any form. It is also agreed that the parties will enter into a partition deed within 45 days from today regarding their rights in the property they obtain as per the above terms and the expense for effecting the partition deed will be met with by them equally.

4. It is agreed by the petitioner that he will remove the articles kept in the portion allotted to the respondent including the petition schedule shop rooms within a period of two weeks from today to enable construction of the separation wall.

5. Once the above terms are implemented and the shop rooms are vacated and handed over the respondent shall give the petitioner an amount of 12,00,000/- (Rupees Twelve Lakhs only) towards fulfillment of his claims and the compensation due to him as well as the advance amount obtained by the respondent. The said amount is exclusively to be paid to the petitioner by the respondent and not to be adjusted for any of the expenses detailed above.

6. It is agreed by the parties that the above terms will be implemented by them within a period RCR No.251 of 2013 4 of 60 days and that by way of this settlement agreement all the disputes pending in this regard before the Mavelikara Rent Control Appellate Authority like RCR52013 and E.P.8/2013 pending before the Chenganoor Rent Control Court will be withdrawn and that there will be no other dispute between the parties in this regard.

7. The parties have thus agreed to settle their disputes finally and there shall be no other dispute with regard to the share allotment as well." 3. In view of the settlement between the parties, we do not think that any order on merits is required in this revision. It is stated in the last paragraph of the compromise that the matter requires to be posted after two months to record compliance of the above terms. The matter is now pending before the Appellate Authority as RCA No.5 of 2013. We think that the Appellate Authority should consider the question of compliance and issue directions, if any, in respect thereof and we authorize the Appellate Authority to do so. Accordingly, the Rent Control Revision is disposed of in terms of the compromise arrived at between the parties and the Rent Control Appellate Authority will consider the RCR No.251 of 2013 5 matter and also as to the compliance or otherwise of the terms of the compromise and if necessary, the Appellate Authority shall issue appropriate directions to the parties. The original of the memorandum of agreement executed by the parties shall be forwarded to the Appellate Authority, after retaining a copy of the same in the file. The Rent Control Revision is disposed of in terms of the compromise agreement. Sd/- (K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE) Sd/- (P.UBAID, JUDGE) ma /True copy/ RCR No.251 of 2013 6


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //