Case Summary
The petitioner, Anthiyalunkal Deepa Mathai, is seeking to regain possession of her property due to non-payment of rent by the respondent, Sarath Prakash. The respondent defaulted on monthly rent payments and has not vacated the premises as requested.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Plaintiff
Relief Granted
The respondent is directed to put the landlord in possession of the petition schedule building after removing all articles.
Case Type
Rent Control Petition
Final Judgment
No
The petition was allowed, directing the respondent to vacate the premises within 30 days. The court found the petitioner entitled to the relief sought due to the respondent's failure to pay rent.
Why Plaintiff Won:
The petitioner established her case with unrebutted evidence.
The petitioner established her case with unrebutted evidence.
Losing Side's Weaknesses:
The petitioner established her case with unrebutted evidence.
The petitioner established her case with unrebutted evidence.
Supporting Evidence
Thus, the unrebutted oral testimony of PW1 and Exts. A1 to A4, established his case as pleaded by him.
Judgment Evidence:
In the result, The petition is allowed u/s 11(2)(b) 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 after removing all the articles from the petition schedule building under Section 11(2)(b) of the Act within 30 days from today.
Parties Involved
Parties
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Anthiyalunkal Deepa Mathai
- Party Age
- 49
- Relation
- W/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Sarath Prakash
- Party Age
- 27
- Relation
- S/o
Plaintiffs Documents
Lawyer's notice dated 06.02.2023, Original A/D sent to the respondent, Copy of lawyer's notice dated 18.03.2023, Original returned postal article sent to the respondent
Defendants Documents
Advocates
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- C.R. Vinodkumar
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Anilkumar C.R.
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Sajo Zacharia Andrews
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Silpa Gopalan
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Renjith Rajan
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- K. Muhammed Rafeeq
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
Reliefs
Relief Type:
Possession
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
The respondent is directed to put the landlord/petitioner in possession of the petition schedule building.
Evidence:
The petition is allowed u/s 11(2)(b) of the Act with costs as follows: The respondent/tenant is directed to put the landlord/petitioner in possession of the petition schedule building after removing all the articles from the petition schedule building under Section 11(2)(b) of the Act within 30 days from today.
Documents & Evidence
Document Type:
Lawyer's Notice
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Copy of the lawyer's notice sent to the respondent regarding arrears of rent.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type:
Postal Acknowledgment Card
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Original postal acknowledgment card sent to the respondent.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type:
Lawyer's Notice
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Copy of the lawyer's notice sent to the respondent regarding rent due.
Reference:
Ext.A3
Document Type:
Returned Postal Article
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Original returned postal article sent to the respondent.
Reference:
Ext.A4
Case Classification
Case Type
Rent Control Petition
Category
Eviction and Rent Control
District
Ernakulam
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court, Ernakulam
Common Reasons
Non-payment of rent
Case Code
Case between Anthiyalunkal Deepa Mathai vs Sarath Prakash regarding arrears of rent
Case Code Year
Case between Anthiyalunkal Deepa Mathai vs Sarath Prakash regarding arrears of rent