IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
RCRev No. 434 of 2006(A)
1. V.N.LATHIKA, D/O.SHARADA, AGED 53
... Petitioner
Vs
1. S.K.JISHIN MOHAN,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.M.RAMESH CHANDER
For Respondent :SRI,BALACHANDAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.A.ABDUL GAFOOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.R.UDAYABHANU
Dated :18/12/2006
O R D E R
K.A. ABDUL GAFOOR & K.R. UDAYABHANU, JJ
=============================
R.C.R. NO. 434 OF 2006 A
==============================
Dated this the 18th day of December 2006
ORDER
Udayabhanu,J
The Revision Petitioner is the tenant who is under orders of
eviction on the basis of the tenant conceding before the Rent
Control Court that she shall vacate. 6 months time was granted
for the same. Subsequently, after about 6 years the
petitioner/tenant filed an appeal which was dismissed at the
threshold as no allegation of fraud on the part of the counsel who
represented the tenant before the Rent Control Court that the
premises shall be vacated within 6 months, was alleged.
We find that there is no case against the counsel who
represented that the petitioner/tenant has no objection in
vacating the premises. The counsel herein has relied on the
decision of Th
omas v. Easo (
1999 (1) KLT 138 in support of the
contention that in the absence of consideration of the provisions
of the statute, specifically with respect to the proviso to section
11(3), the order on the basis of the compromise cannot be
R.C.R. No. 434 of 2006 2
approved. We find that facts are entirely different in Thomas
case. There was specific provision in the compromise filed
therein that no alternate premises were available in the vicinity
as provided under proviso to section 11(3). We find no merit in
the Revision Petition filed and the same is dismissed in limine.
K.A. ABDUL GAFOOR, JUDGE
K.R. UDAYABHANU, JUDGE
RV
R.C.R. No. 434 of 2006 3