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

Main navigation

  • Home
  • Lawyer Login
  • Lawyer Registration
R.C.P. No. 155/2024

Case between A.P. Thomas @ Tomy Peter vs Abhilash K P regarding tenancy and rent arrears.

Court
THE COURT OF THE THIRD ADDL. MUNSIFF & RENT CONTROLLER, ERNAKULAM
Judge
SMT. REEJA R. NAIR.
Order Date
2025-03-24
Duration
approximately-2 years 5 months

Judgement document from eCourt website

Open judgment PDF (eCourt)
Find Similar Cases

Case Summary

A.P. Thomas @ Tomy Peter rented a property to Abhilash K P for conducting an overseas educational consultancy. After the lease expired, the respondent continued to occupy the property without paying rent, leading to this petition.

Judgment Outcome

Plaintiff Won
Interim Order
The court allowed the petition, directing the tenant to vacate the property and pay the costs to the landlord.
Judgment Favored
Plaintiff
Relief Granted
The respondent/tenant 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 petitioner established that the rent was in arrears and demonstrated a bona fide need for the property.

Judgment Evidence:

In the result, The petition is allowed u/s 11(2)(b), 11(3) and 11(4)(v) of the Act with costs as follows: 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

A.P. Thomas @ Tomy Peter (84 years years) Petriz Building S A Road, Kadavanthra Kochi-682020

Defendants

Abhilash K P (45 year years) Flat No. 56, Tanzed Chalet Palathuruthu, Kadavanthra P.O., Ernakulam, Pin-682020

Reliefs

Relief Type: Possession
Outcome: Granted
Description:
The respondent was directed to put the petitioner in possession of the petition schedule building.
Evidence:
The petition is allowed u/s 11(2)(b), 11(3) and 11(4)(v) of the Act.
Relief Type: Other
Outcome: Granted
Description:
The petitioners are entitled to get the costs of the petition from the respondent.
Evidence:
The petitioners are entitled to get the costs of the petition from the respondent.

Documents & Evidence

Document Type: Rental Agreement
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
The document was intended to support the petitioner's claim but was rejected due to lack of certification.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type: Lawyer's Notice
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
The notice was accepted and appreciated in evidence as it indicated the petitioner sought to terminate the tenancy.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type: Postal receipt
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
The document was original evidence supporting the delivery of the legal notice.
Reference:
Ext.A3
Document Type: Returned Envelope
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
This envelope provided proof of the attempted communication with the respondent.
Reference:
Ext.A4

Quick Facts

Location
Ernakulam
Case Filed
Sat, 10/01/2022 - 12:00
Outcome Confidence
90%

Involved Entities

Similar Cases