Skip to main content
Niyamam AI- Beta Niyamam AI- Beta

Main navigation

  • Home
  • Lawyer Login
  • Lawyer Registration
R.C.P. No.46/2024

Case between Annam Mavely vs Diaguncart Technologies Pvt. Ltd. regarding eviction due to rent arrears

Court
THE COURT OF THE THIRD ADDL. MUNSIFF & RENT CONTROLLER
Judge
SMT. REEJA R. NAIR.
Order Date
2024-11-02
Duration

Judgement document from eCourt website

Open judgment PDF (eCourt)
Find Similar Cases

Case Summary

Annam Mavely, the petitioner, is seeking eviction of Diaguncart Technologies Pvt. Ltd. due to non-payment of rent over several months, along with the unauthorized subleasing of the premises. The court found the evidence supporting the petitioner's claims and allowed the petition in part.

Judgment Outcome

Plaintiff Won
Interim Order
The petition was allowed in part, directing the respondent to vacate the premises and pay costs to the petitioner. The court noted the compelling evidence in favor of the petitioner's claims.
Judgment Favored
Plaintiff
Relief Granted
The respondent is directed to put the landlord/petitioner in possession of the petition schedule building within 30 days.
Case Type
Rent Control Petition
Final Judgment
No
Why Plaintiff Won:
The court found the evidence of unpaid rent and unauthorized subleasing to be compelling and uncontroverted.

Judgment Evidence:

In the result, The petition is allowed in part u/S 11(2)(b) and 11(3) of the Act with costs as follows: 1. The respondent/tenant is directed to put the landlord/petitioner in possession of the petition schedule building within 30 days from today.

Parties Involved

Plaintiffs

Annam Mavely (76 years) 476/13th Main, 3rd Block, Koramangala, Bangalore, Pin-560034 Santosh Joseph Mavely (51 years) A304 Mantri Classic Apartments, ST Bed Layout, Koramangala, Bangalore, Pin-560034

Defendants

Diaguncart Technologies Pvt. Ltd. (Age not specified years) South Janata Road, Palarivattom, Kochi-682025

Reliefs

Relief Type: Possession
Outcome: Partly Granted
Description:
The petitioner requested possession of the building due to non-payment of rent.
Evidence:
The respondent/tenant is directed to put the landlord/petitioner in possession of the petition schedule building within 30 days from today.
Relief Type: Other
Outcome: Not Decided
Description:
The petitioner sought relief under Section 11(3) of the Act for bonafide need.
Evidence:
Since the bonafide need was not proved by the petitioner, the prayer under Section 11(3) of the Act is disallowed.

Documents & Evidence

Document Type: Power of Attorney
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Filed to establish the petitioner's authority in the case.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type: Copy of Lawyer's notice
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Used to demonstrate that the respondent was notified of the overdue rent.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type: Original acknowledgement
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Provided evidence of receipt of the lawyer's notice by the respondent.
Reference:
Ext.A3

Quick Facts

Location
Ernakulam
Case Filed
Thu, 10/01/2020 - 12:00
Outcome Confidence
85%

Involved Entities

Similar Cases