AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A.K. Basheer, J.—Respondent is in occupation of the ground floor of a three storied building belonging to her husband''s family, as a tenant. The first and second floors are reportedly under occupation of two other tenants.
The Rent Control Court ordered eviction u/s 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965. In appeal, the Appellate Authority reversed the above order and dismissed the eviction petition. Hence the revision petition by the landlady.
In the course of hearing of the revision petition, a suggestion was made to the learned Counsel on both sides to explore the possibility of an amicable settlement of all pending litigations between the parties, especially since, they are closely related to each other (revision petition is the mother-in-law of the Respondent, who is a widow with a minor child). We were informed that a preliminary decree has already been passed in the suit filed by the Respondent and her son. We were further informed that two Arbitration appeals and two Regular First Appeals were pending before this Court, in addition to a criminal case filed by the Respondent against the younger brother of her deceased husband, now pending on the file of Chief Judicial Magistrate''s Court, Ernakulam in C.C. No. 252/2006.
It was in the above background that we directed the parties to appear before us so as to impress upon them that it will be in the interest of all concerned to settle the entire disputes amicably. It is heartening to note that parties have responded to the suggestion made by this Court, thanks largely to the excellent co-operation shown by the counsel who represent them.
A compromise petition has been drawn up incorporating all the terms and conditions for settlement. We do not deem it necessary to refer to the various clauses contained in the comprehensive compromise petition duly signed by the parties and their respective counsel. The compromise petition containing various clauses therein shall form part of this judgment. Accordingly, RCR No. 137/08, Arb.A.46/2010 and Arb.A.28/11 shall stand dismissed.
RFA Nos. 685/08 and 795/08 are filed by the Defendants and Plaintiffs respectively against the decree and judgment in O.S.202/06, the partition suit referred to above. The parties have agreed that the decree and judgment in the above suit shall stand modified to the extent indicated in paragraph 2, 2(a), 5, 6 and 8 of the compromise petition. Accordingly a revised decree shall be drawn up in terms of the above clauses in the compromise petition.
As regards the criminal case filed by the Respondent against Sri. Suresh her brother-in-law, it is agreed by her that she does not intend to prosecute the case any further. We have perused the records relating to this case which we have called for from the court below. It is revealed from the records that Sri. Suresh is facing trial for the offences punishable under Sections 465 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code apart from some other allied offences. The charge against Sri. Suresh appears to be that he had committed forgery and theft of 130 shares of Volta India Limited deposited with Geogit Finance Limited, Ernakulam. According to the Respondent/complainant, these shares belonged to her deceased husband and Sri. Suresh had sold them without her consent or knowledge. Anyhow, since the parties have decided to bury the hatchet once and for all by settling all the inter se disputes amicably, we deem it fit and proper to invoke the power u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and quash the above proceedings pending against Sri. Suresh before the Chief Judicial Magistrate''s Court in C.C.252/2006. Ordered accordingly.
Compromise is recorded and all the above cases are disposed of accordingly.
All pending interlocutory applications in the above cases are closed.