Case Summary
Two petitioners sought eviction of a room rented to the respondent to commence a profitable hotel business stating the room's suitability and lack of suitable rooms for the respondent's business.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Plaintiff
Relief Granted
Eviction and cost recovery
Case Type
Rent Control Petition
Final Judgment
No
The court allowed the petition under Section 11(3) of the Kerala Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act 1965, directing the respondent to provide vacant possession to the petitioners and bear the petition costs.
Why Plaintiff Won:
The respondent failed to counter the petitioner's claims of bonafide need for the room for a profitable business. The court found the petitioners' need genuine and granted eviction.
The respondent failed to counter the petitioner's claims of bonafide need for the room for a profitable business. The court found the petitioners' need genuine and granted eviction.
Losing Side's Weaknesses:
The respondent failed to counter the petitioner's claims of bonafide need for the room for a profitable business. The court found the petitioners' need genuine and granted eviction.
The respondent failed to counter the petitioner's claims of bonafide need for the room for a profitable business. The court found the petitioners' need genuine and granted eviction.
Supporting Evidence
Since no counter seen filed by respondents opted to remain exparte, the evidence adduced by the petitioners remained unchallenged. Therefore I find no reason to disbelieve the bonofide need put forward by the petitioners.
Judgment Evidence:
The petition is allowed under section 11(3) of the Kerala Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act 1965 as follows:- a) The respondent is directed to put the petitioner in vacant possession of the petition schedule property within one month from today. b) The petitioner is entitled to realize the cost of the petition from the respondent.
Parties Involved
Parties
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Abdul Latheef
- Party Age
- 65
- Relation
- S/o. Kayalmadhathil Ahammad Kutty @ Muhammadali
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Abdul Hameed
- Party Age
- 63
- Relation
- S/o. Kayalmadhathil Ahammad Kutty @ Muhammadali
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Indus Motors Company, Private Ltd
Plaintiffs Documents
Not mentioned
Defendants Documents
Not mentioned
Advocates
Reliefs
Relief Type:
Eviction
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
Petitioners granted vacant possession of the petition schedule property and right to recover petition costs.
Evidence:
The petition is allowed under section 11(3) of the Kerala Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act 1965 as follows:- a) The respondent is directed to put the petitioner in vacant possession of the petition schedule property within one month from today. b) The petitioner is entitled to realize the cost of the petition from the respondent.
Documents & Evidence
Case Classification
Case Type
Rent Control Petition
Category
Eviction and Rent Control
District
Malappuram
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court, Tirur / Rent Control Court
Common Reasons
Case Code
Case between Abdul Latheef et al vs Indus Motors Company, Private Ltd regarding eviction for commercial purpose
Case Code Year
Case between Abdul Latheef et al vs Indus Motors Company, Private Ltd regarding eviction for commercial purpose