IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM FRIDAY, THE 19TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 30TH MAGHA 1931 RCRev..No. 255 of 2009() ------------------------ RCA.23/2006 of RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY, KOTTAYAM OPBRC.2/2005 of RENT COURT COURT, PALA .................... REVISION PETITIONERS/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT ----------------------------------------- JOSE SANTHOSH @ SANTHOSH AGED 44 YEARS, KUZHIKKOMBIL HOUSE PALA,,MEENACHIL VILLAGE AND TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.SATHISH NINAN SRI.SANTHOSH MATHEW SRI.ARUN THOMAS SRI.JENNIS STEPHEN RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT/PETITIONER: --------------- K.T.AUGUSTINE, S/O.THOMAS AGED 53 YEARS, VAYALIL KUTTIYAMKAL HOUSE KIZHAPARAYAR PO, PARAPPALLY KARA, POOVARANY VILLAGE. ADV. SRI.MATHEW JOHN (K) FOR R1 SRI.AJEESH K.SASI FOR R1 THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------ R.C.R.No. 255 OF 2009 ------------------------ Dated this the 19 th day of February, 2010 O R D E R Pius C.Kuriakose, J. After hearing both sides elaborately, we noticed that since the findings entered by the Rent Control Appellate Authority, which under the statutory scheme is the final authority on facts, were founded on evidence available on record, the scope for interference within the contours of Section 20 was limited. At the same time, in view of certain subsequent events brought to our notice and also the equities of the matter, we thought that this is a case which should be settled between the parties by negotiation. Accordingly, both the parties were present before us on 15/2/2010. We explored the possibility of a settlement. The learned counsel on both sides also participated very actively in our endeavour to bring for the settlement between the parties. Finally, it was reported on 15/2/2010 itself that the parties have come to an settlement. Today, the joint compromise petition signed by both the parties and attested by their counsel is before us. RCR.No.255/2009 2 2. We do not find anything unlawful about the terms of the compromise. We record all the terms of the compromise. We uphold the order of eviction passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority and confirm the same. However, we order that the revision petitioner will not be evicted from the building in question before 30/6/2010. He will be evicted by the date stipulated in the compromise petition only if the amounts mentioned in paragraph 2(i) of the Compromise Petition are paid to him in the manner stated in that paragraph. The RCR is disposed of accordingly. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE C.K.ABDUL REHIM , JUDGE dpk