Case Summary
The petitioner, Antony T.M, filed a rent control petition against the respondent, Renju K.V, concerning a residential tenancy matter. The case involved the surrender of vacant possession of the property by the respondent.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Defendant
Relief Granted
Case Type
Rent Control Petition
Final Judgment
No
The court dismissed the rent control petition as not pressed because the respondent surrendered the vacant possession of the petition schedule building.
Key Reasoning:
Why Defendant Won:
Supporting Evidence
Judgment Evidence:
Hence the rent control petition is dismissed as not pressed.
Parties Involved
Parties
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Antony T.M
- Party Age
- 58
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Renju K.V
- Party Age
- 44
- Relation
- W/o
Plaintiffs Documents
Rent Control Petition
Defendants Documents
Advocates
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Syama Mohan
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Aneesh K.R.
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Joseph Ben
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
Reliefs
Relief Type:
Other
Outcome:
Dismissed
Description:
The rent control petition is dismissed as not pressed.
Evidence:
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits rent control petition is not pressed since respondent surrendered vacant possession of petition schedule building.
Documents & Evidence
Case Classification
Case Type
Rent Control Petition
Category
Eviction and Rent Control
District
Ernakulam
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court, Ernakulam
Common Reasons
Case Code
Case between Antony T.M vs Renju K.V regarding Rent Control Petition
Case Code Year
Case between Antony T.M vs Renju K.V regarding Rent Control Petition