Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA
P.N. Ravindran & Babu Mathew P. Joseph, JJ.
Meena Joshy – Appellant
Vs.
Jojo P. George – Respondent
O.P. (R.C.) No. 62 of 2015
Decided On : 26-10-2015
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Section 89 - Kerala Civil Procedure (Alternative Dispute Resolution) Rules 2008 - Rule 24 - Mediation - Settlement - Whether stipulation in Rule 24 is be said to be mandatory - Held, Unlike statutes governing filing of election petitions which mandates that election petitions shall be accompanied by an affidavit in manner prescribed and also sets out consequences of non compliance, R.24 of ADR Rules does not stipulate that in event of failure on part of lawyers appearing on both sides to verify signatures of parties, agreement cannot be considered as lawful - Rule is only intended to ensure that parties are not impersonated and that parties themselves affix their signature - Stipulation in R.24 in that regard cannot be said to be mandatory
Certainly. Here are the key points from the provided legal document:
The case involves a dispute over a memorandum of settlement agreement and its validity under the ADR Rules, specifically Rule 24, which pertains to mediation and settlement agreements (!) (!) .
The core issue is whether the stipulation in Rule 24, requiring signatures to be attested by counsel or authorized persons, is mandatory or directory. The court held that this stipulation is not mandatory but directory, meaning non-compliance does not automatically invalidate the agreement (!) (!) .
The petitioner (tenant) admitted signing the settlement agreement but claimed she was under a mistaken impression and unaware of the subsequent eviction order, alleging fraud and misrepresentation. However, her signature was not disputed as a forgery or coerced (!) (!) .
The court emphasized that the primary purpose of the attestation requirement is to prevent impersonation and ensure authenticity, but its absence does not render an agreement unlawful if the signature is genuine and the parties are aware of the terms (!) (!) .
The court noted that the ADR Rules do not specify consequences for non-attestation and that the rules aim mainly to facilitate smooth mediation, not to impose strict mandatory formalities (!) (!) .
The court observed that the petitioner had ample opportunity to challenge the validity of the settlement or the eviction order but chose not to do so timely, and her subsequent challenge was an attempt to delay the eviction process (!) .
The court dismissed the petition, concluding that the agreement was valid and lawfully accepted, and that the petitioner’s objections did not warrant setting aside the settlement or the eviction order (!) .
Overall, the decision underscores that compliance with formalities in mediation agreements, while desirable, is not necessarily mandatory for their validity, provided there is genuine consent and no evidence of coercion or forgery (!) (!) .
Would you like a more detailed analysis or assistance with a specific aspect of this case?
P.N. Ravindran, J.
1. The petitioner is the tenant in R.C.P. No. 10 of 2013 on the file of the Rent Control Court, Thiruvananthapuram. The respondents herein are the owners of a two storied building bearing door No. T.C. 4/1273 (3) and T.C. 4/1273(4) of Thiruvananthapuram Corporation. They had let out the cellar portion of the said building, bearing door No. T.C. 4/1273(4) and having an area of 1550 Sq. Ft. to the petitioner herein. They had in R.C.P. No. 10 of 2013 which was instituted in the Rent Control Court, Thiruvananthapuram on 02.03.2013 prayed for an order evicting the petitioner herein from the said building, under Ss. 11(3) and 11 (8) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, herein after referred to as the "Act" for short. The petitioner herein is conducting a saloon therein under the name and style "Meenu's Care and Beauty Saloon". The landlords had prayed for an order of eviction so as to enable them to shift the pharmaceutical business being run by the first respondent at Thiruvalla under the name and style "Geo Drug House" to Thiruvananthapuram. The respondents had averred that the first respondent is running the business at Thiruvalla in a rented building and that the landlord of the said building has demanded vacant possession of the building. The respondents had also averred that they intend to shift the pharmaceutical business to the petition schedule premises which is the cellar portion of the building, the ground floor and the first floor of which is their dwelling house. The landlords had in paragraph 5 of the Rent Control Petition averred that the monthly rent for the petition schedule building agreed to between the parties is Rs. 25,000/-. They had in paragraph 6 thereof averred that the tenant has paid the sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- as security. Paragraphs 5 and 6 of the Rent Control Petition are extracted below:-
5. On 15.1.2008 after negotiations the petitioners agreed to give the above furnished petition schedule building on rent to the counter petitioner on a monthly rent of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only).
6. On 17.1.2008 the counter petitioner executed an agreement in favour of the petitioners and the petitioners received an amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- (Rupees one lakh fifty thousand only) towards advance and security deposit which is refundable to the counter petitioner on termination of tenancy and handing over the vacant possession of the petition schedule building to the petitioners without any arrears of rent, other charges and damages."
2. Upon receipt of notice from the Rent Control Court, the tenant entered appearance and filed a counter statement dated 04.11.2013. In paragraph 12 thereof she has averred as follows:
12. Averments in para 5, 6 and 7 are admitted. She, however, denied and disputed the bona fide need put forward by the landlords and contended that she is entitled to the protection of the second proviso to S. 11 (3) of the Act. The tenant had in the counter statement filed by her also contended that the petition for eviction is filed as a counter blast to O.S. No. 184 of 2013 filed by her in the Court of the Munsiff of Thiruvananthapuram, which in turn was filed apprehending that the landlords will cut off the amenities and forcibly evict her from the petition schedule building.
3. The tenant was set ex-parte on 01.10.2013 for the reason that no counter statement had been filed and the Rent Control Petition was posted to 19.10.2013 for the evidence of the landlords. The tenant thereupon filed I.A. No. 7959 of 2013 on 06.11.2013 praying that the order setting her ex-parte may be set aside and the counter statement filed along with it may be received. That application was allowed by order passed on 8.11.2013. On the same day, the Rent Control Court directed both parties to be present for mediation on 23.11.2013. Since there was no sitting on 23.11.2013, the Rent Control Petition was adjourned to 09.12.2013. On 09.12.2013, both parties and their c
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
