IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 7074 of 2010(H)
1. JAYAN PADINJARAYIL,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. ANNAMMA JOHN, W/O. JOHN,
... Respondent
2. RANI, D/O. JOHN,
3. SWANI, D/O. JOHN,
4. SHEELA, D/O. JOHN,
For Petitioner :SRI.M.P.MADHAVANKUTTY
For Respondent :SRI.SHAJI P.CHALY
The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.K.ABDUL REHIM
Dated :07/04/2010
O R D E R
PIUS C. KURIAKOSE &
C. K. ABDUL REHIM, JJ.
------------------------------------------------
W. P. C. No.7074 of 2010
------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 7th day of April, 2010
JUDGMENT
Pius C. Kuriakose, J
Sri.M.P.Madhavankutty, the learned counsel
for the petitioner submitted that RCA.51/05 which
is filed against the order of the Rent Control Court
fixing the fair rent of the building at Rs.870/- was
dismissed by the Appellate Authority. He
submitted further that the petitioner will abide by
the above judgment and will not pursue the
matter further in revision to this Court. We record
the above submission.
2. According to Mr.Madhavankutty it was
mainly due to a mistake committed by the
W. P. C. No.7074 of 2010 -2-
Munsiff’s Court, Pala that the 11(2) petition which
was filed by the petitioner was entertained by that
court and numbered as E.A. He referred to the
maxim Actus curiae neminem gravabit and
submitted that the party may not be made to
suffer for wrong committed by the court. The
entire amount due as on date as per the fair rent
fixed by the Rent Control Court together with
interest was deposited and the Rent Control Court
passed Ext.P9 order on being convinced regarding
the sufficiency of the deposit. Counsel submitted
that any reasonable condition may be imposed by
this Court for regularising Ext.P9.
3. The request of Mr.Madhavankutty is
opposed by Sri.S.P.Chaly. However, on our
W. P. C. No.7074 of 2010 -3-
suggestion it was agreed by Mr.Chaly that if the
petitioner is prepared to pay monthly rent with
effect from 01/05/10 at the rate of Rs.1,000/- per
mensem and also the cost ordered as payable
under Ext.P9, there will not be serious objection to
relief being granted to the petitioner.
Mr.Madhavankutty submitted that the petitioner is
ready and willing to pay monthly rent to the
respondents with effect form 01/05/10 at the rate
of Rs.1,000/- per mensem. Under the above
circumstances, we dispose of the Writ Petition
issuing the following orders.
Ext.P11 will stand set aside and Ext.P9 will
stand regularised and confirmed subject to the
following conditions:-
W. P. C. No.7074 of 2010 -4-
1) The petitioner shall pay monthly rent to
the respondents at the rate of Rs.1,000/- with
effect from 01/05/10.
2) Petitioner shall pay the sum of Rs.500/-
ordered as per Ext.P9 to the respondents either
directly or through the respondents’ counsel in
this Court within seven days from today.
3) The petitioner will pay a sum of Rs.1,000/-
to the High Court Legal Services Committee within
seven days from today.
4) Arrears after the date of deposit till date
will also be paid (at the present rate) within three
weeks from today.
Receipt against payment of both the amounts
will be produced before the execution court when
W. P. C. No.7074 of 2010 -5-
the court re-opens after mid-summer vacation.
We make it clear that if any of the above
conditions are not complied with, Ext.P11 will
continue to operate and it will be open to the
respondents to continue with the execution
proceedings.
PIUS C. KURIAKOSE
JUDGE
C. K. ABDUL REHIM
JUDGE
kns/-