Case Summary
Abdul Nazer filed a petition against Soman for eviction from a building that originally belonged to Nazer's father. The petitioner claims the building is needed for his business, while the respondent argues that he has been authorized to occupy the premises.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Plaintiff
Relief Granted
The respondent is directed to give vacant possession of the petition schedule building to the petitioner within three months.
Case Type
Rent Control Petition
Final Judgment
No
Why Plaintiff Won:
The petitioner proved his need for the premises for business purposes and showed that the respondent does not depend on the premises for his livelihood.
The petitioner proved his need for the premises for business purposes and showed that the respondent does not depend on the premises for his livelihood.
Judgment Evidence:
In the result, the petition is allowed under Sections 11 (3), 11 (4) (ii) and 11 (4) (iii) of the Kerala Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 as follows: 1. The respondent is directed to give vacant possession of the petition schedule building to the petitioner within three months from today.
Parties Involved
Plaintiffs
Abdul Nazer (39 years)
S/o. Kuppante Purakkal, Aboobacker Haji, Mangalam amsom, Koottayi desom, PO. Koottayi, Tirur Taluk, PIN 676 562
Defendants
Soman (47 years)
S/o. Velichapad Kadavil Sankaran, P.S.Store, Near Asanpadi, Mangalam amsom, Koottayi desom, PO. Koottayi, Tirur Taluk, PIN 676 562
Reliefs
Relief Type:
Eviction
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
The respondent is directed to give vacant possession of the petition schedule building to the petitioner.
Evidence:
In the result, the petition is allowed under Sections 11 (3), 11 (4) (ii) and 11 (4) (iii) of the Kerala Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 as follows: The respondent is directed to give vacant possession of the petition schedule building to the petitioner within three months from today.
Relief Type:
Other
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
The petitioner is entitled to realise the costs of the petition from the respondent.
Evidence:
So the petitioner is entitled to realise the cost of the proceedings from the respondent.
Documents & Evidence
Document Type:
Joint Release Deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
The petitioner's ownership of the petition schedule building is supported by this document.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type:
Joint Release Deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
The petitioner's ownership of the petition schedule building is supported by this document.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type:
Commissioner Report
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
This report was filed to support the court's consideration regarding the petition.
Reference:
Ext.C1
Document Type:
Plan
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
This plan was filed to support the court's consideration regarding the petition.
Reference:
Ext.C2