IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANIL K. NARENDRAN &

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. BABU THURSDAY, THE 9^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 18TH BHADRA, 1943 R.C.REV. NO.399 OF 2019 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 22.07.2019 IN R.C.A. 11 OF 2018 OF THE RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY (ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE), NORTH PARAVUR AND ORDER DATED 16.02.2018 IN R.C.P. NO.29 OF 2014 OF THE RENT CONTROL COURT (MUNSIFF COURT), ALUVA.

REVISION PETITIONER/S:

1 ITTIYACHAN, AGED 75 YEARS, S/O.URUMEES, THOTTAKKARA HOUSE, VADAKKUMBHAGAM, MANJAPPRA, ALUVA TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

2 THRESSIAMMA, AGED 72 YEARS, W/O.ITTIYACHAN, THOTTAKKARA HOUSE, VADAKKUMBHAGAM, MANJAPPRA, ALUVA TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

(BOTH PETITIONERS ARE REPRESENTED BY THEIR POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER AUGUSTHY, AGED 71 YEARS, S/O.VAREED, MADAN HOUSE, VADAKKUMBHAGAM, MANJAPPRA, ALUVA TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT).

BY ADVS.

E.C.POULOSE SMT.BOBBY RAPHEAL.C RESPONDENT/S:

BABY @ BABY V.MUNDADAN, S/O.VARKEY, MUNDADAN HOUSE, ANGAMALY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 683 572.

BY ADVS.

SRI.B.JAYASANKER SRI.K.SREESAKUMAR THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

09.09.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

Anil K. Narendran, J.

The revision petitioners herein have filed R.C.P. No.29 of

2014 on the file of the Rent Control (Munsiff) Court, Aluva, a petition filed under Section 11(3) of the Kerala Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, seeking eviction of the respondent- tenant from the petition schedule shop room. The petitioners have filed this revision invoking the provisions under Section 20 of the Act, against the judgment dated of 22.07.2019 of the Rent Control Appellate Authority (Additional District Judge), North Paravur in R.C.A. No.11 of 2018, whereby the order dated 16.07.2018 of the Rent Control Court in R.C.P. No.29 of 2014 stands reversed.

2. On 25.10.2019, when this revision came up for admission, this Court admitted the matter on file and issued notice to the respondent by speed post.

3. On 03.03.2020, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that there is a chance of settlement of the dispute involved in this matter. The learned counsel for the respondent sought time to explore the possibilities of settlement.

4. Today, when the case is taken up for consideration, the learned counsel for the petitioner-landlord would submit that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties and as such the petitioner-landlord do not want to prosecute this revision further, which may be dismissed as not pressed. A memo to that effect has also been filed by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

In such circumstances, recording the 'not press' memo filed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this revision is dismissed as not pressed.

Sd/-

ANIL K.NARENDRAN JUDGE Sd/-

K. BABU JUDGE MIN