R.C.P. No. 18/2023

Case between Arun A Ravindran vs Sasikanth, Padma R Bhat regarding eviction under the Kerala Buildings Lease & Rent Control Act, 1965.

Court

THE COURT OF THE THIRD ADDL. MUNSIFF & RENT CONTROLLER

Judge

SMT. REEJA R. NAIR.

Order Date

2024-09-05

Duration

approximately-2 years 8 months

Case Closed

Judgement document from eCourt website

Save Case Find Similar Cases

Case Summary

The petitioner, Arun A Ravindran, seeks eviction of the respondents, Sasikanth and Padma R. Bhat, from a leased property in Kochi for his own use. The respondents argue that they have made substantial investments in the property and are dependent on it for their livelihood.

Judgment Outcome

Defendant Won

Interim Order

The court dismissed the petition for eviction, ruling that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a bona fide need for the property and that eviction would cause undue hardship to the respondents, who rely on the property for their livelihood.

Judgment Favored

Defendant

Relief Granted

Case Type

Rent Control Petition

Final Judgment

Key Reasoning:
The petitioner did not prove the bona fide need for eviction, as required under the law.

Why Defendant Won:
Not available

Supporting Evidence

The petitioner has not succeeded in proving the bona fide need as per Sec. 11(3) of the Act.

Judgment Evidence:

In the result, the eviction sought under Section 11(3), 11(4)(ii) and 11(4)(iv) of the Act is dismissed.

Parties Involved

Parties

Party Role: Plaintiff
Party Name: Arun A Ravindran
Party Age: 48
Relation: S/o

Party Role: Defendant
Party Name: Sasikanth
Party Age: 37
Relation: S/o

Party Role: Defendant
Party Name: Padma R. Bhat
Relation: W/o

Plaintiffs Documents

Power of Attorney dated 26.12.2005, Original Lease Agreement, various legal notices.

Defendants Documents

Income Tax returns for the years 2018-2024.

Advocates

Party Role: Plaintiff
Advocate Name: C.S. Manu
Appearance Type: Main Counsel

Party Role: Plaintiff
Advocate Name: T.B. Sivaprasad
Appearance Type: Main Counsel

Party Role: Plaintiff
Advocate Name: Alint Joseph
Appearance Type: Main Counsel

Party Role: Plaintiff
Advocate Name: C.Y. Vijaykumar
Appearance Type: Main Counsel

Party Role: Defendant
Advocate Name: V.K. Balachandran
Appearance Type: Main Counsel

Party Role: Defendant
Advocate Name: Amrutha P.S.
Appearance Type: Main Counsel

Reliefs

Relief Type: Eviction

Outcome: Refused

Description:

The petitioner sought eviction of the respondents from the petition schedule building.

Evidence:

Thus, the point No.4 is also accordingly found against the petitioner.

Relief Type: Eviction

Outcome: Refused

Description:

The petitioner sought eviction under Section 11(3) and 11(4)(ii) of the Act.

Evidence:

The eviction sought under Section 11(3), 11(4)(ii) and 11(4)(iv) of the Act is dismissed.

Relief Type: Eviction

Outcome: Refused

Description:

The petitioner sought eviction under Section 11(4)(iv) of the Act.

Evidence:

The eviction sought under Section 11(3), 11(4)(ii) and 11(4)(iv) of the Act is dismissed.

Documents & Evidence

Document Type: Original power of attorney

Submitted By: Plaintiff

Relevance:

This document establishes the power of attorney holder for the petitioner.

Reference:

Ext.A1

Document Type: Original lease agreement

Submitted By: Plaintiff

Relevance:

This document pertains to the initial lease agreement between the petitioner and respondents.

Reference:

Ext.A2

Document Type: Original of renewal of lease deed

Submitted By: Plaintiff

Relevance:

These documents confirm the renewals of the lease deed for the specified periods.

Reference:

Ext.A3, Ext.A4, Ext.A5

Document Type: Copy of Lawyer's notice

Submitted By: Plaintiff

Relevance:

This document is a legal notice sent to the respondents demanding vacate.

Reference:

Ext.A6

Document Type: Reply Notice

Submitted By: Plaintiff

Relevance:

This document is the response sent by the respondents to the petitioner's notice.

Reference:

Ext.A7

Document Type: Lawyer's Notice

Submitted By: Plaintiff

Relevance:

This document is another notice sent by the petitioner to the respondents.

Reference:

Ext.A8

Document Type: Lease deed executed between petitioner and 1st respondent

Submitted By: Plaintiff

Relevance:

This document confirms the lease agreement that was executed between the petitioner and the 1st respondent.

Reference:

Ext.A9

Document Type: Copy of E mail

Submitted By: Defendant

Relevance:

This document is relevant for understanding the communication regarding the tenancy.

Reference:

Ext.B1(a)

Document Type: Computer printout of IT returns for the year 2018-2019

Submitted By: Defendant

Relevance:

This document reflects the financial status of the respondent for that financial year.

Reference:

Ext.B2(a)

Document Type: Computer printout of IT returns for the year 2019-2020

Submitted By: Defendant

Relevance:

This document reflects the financial status of the respondent for that financial year.

Reference:

Ext.B3(a)

Document Type: Computer printout of IT returns for the year 2020-2021

Submitted By: Defendant

Relevance:

This document reflects the financial status of the respondent for that financial year.

Reference:

Ext.B4(a)

Document Type: Copy of Indian Income Tax return acknowledgment for the year 2021-2022

Submitted By: Defendant

Relevance:

This document is relevant for tax compliance and financial assessment of the respondent.

Reference:

Ext.B5(a)

Document Type: Copy of Indian Income Tax return acknowledgment for the year 2022-2023

Submitted By: Defendant

Relevance:

This document is relevant for tax compliance and financial assessment of the respondent.

Reference:

Ext.B6(a)

Document Type: Copy of Indian Income Tax return acknowledgment for the year 2023-2024

Submitted By: Defendant

Relevance:

This document is relevant for tax compliance and financial assessment of the respondent.

Reference:

Ext.B7(a)

Document Type: Copy of IT returns in the name of 2nd respondent for year 2019-2020

Submitted By: Defendant

Relevance: