Case Summary
The petitioners, Dr. M.N Subramanian and K.M. Saraswathy, are the owners of a building leased to the respondents for running a restaurant. They filed a petition due to non-payment of rent and unauthorized changes made by the respondents.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Plaintiff
Relief Granted
Respondents directed to put the landlord in possession of the building.
Case Type
Rent Control
Final Judgment
No
The petition is allowed, directing the respondents to return possession of the leased property to the petitioners within 30 days and to pay costs to the petitioners.
Why Plaintiff Won:
The petition was uncontroverted with no evidence presented by the respondents to refute the claims.
The petition was uncontroverted with no evidence presented by the respondents to refute the claims.
Losing Side's Weaknesses:
The petition was uncontroverted with no evidence presented by the respondents to refute the claims.
The petition was uncontroverted with no evidence presented by the respondents to refute the claims.
Supporting Evidence
The unrebutted oral testimony of PW1 and Exts. A3 to A5 established his case as pleaded by her. It is seen that the rent is in arrears from the respondents.
Judgment Evidence:
In the result: The petition is allowed u/s 11(2)(b) of the Act as follows: 1. The respondents are directed to put the landlord/petitioner in possession of the petition schedule building within 30 days from today.
Parties Involved
Parties
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Dr. M.N Subramanian
- Party Age
- 75
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Mrs. KM Saraswathy
- Party Age
- 70
- Relation
- W/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- M/s Su @ Park Institutions Pvt Ltd
- Relation
- Represented by
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Ms. Hyeonju Park
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Mr. Jongman Park
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Mrs. Deepa Aruja
- Relation
- W/o
Plaintiffs Documents
Copy of lease deed dated 17.08.2022, Copy of corrected lease deed dated 17.08.2022, Copy of lawyer's notice dated 26.04.2023, Reply notice dated 15.05.2023, Copy of rejoinder lawyer's notice dated 23.05.2023
Defendants Documents
Advocates
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Philip T. Varghese
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Thomas T. Varghese
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Shubha Abraham
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Urmila M.G
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Thahseem. A.
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Gayathri Vijayan
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Kallyani G. Menon
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Vishnu Satheesan
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Rineesha Rajkumar
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
Reliefs
Relief Type:
Possession
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
The respondents are 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 as follows: The respondents are directed to put the landlord/petitioner in possession of the petition schedule building within 30 days from today.
Relief Type:
Other
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
The order passed under Section 11(2)(b) shall be subject to provisions under Section 11(2)(c) of the Act.
Evidence:
The order passed under Section 11(2)(b) shall be subject to provisions under Section 11(2)(c) of the Act.
Relief Type:
Other
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
The petitioner is entitled to realize costs of the suit from the respondents.
Evidence:
The petitioner is entitled to realize costs of the suit from the respondents.
Documents & Evidence
Document Type:
Lease Deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Copy of lease deed dated 17.08.2022, marked subject to proof but rejected due to lack of evidence.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type:
Lease Deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Copy of corrected lease deed dated 17.08.2022, marked subject to proof but rejected due to lack of evidence.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type:
Lawyer's Notice
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Copy of lawyer's notice dated 26.04.2023, admitted and marked in evidence.
Reference:
Ext.A3
Document Type:
Reply Notice
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Reply notice dated 15.05.2023, admitted and marked in evidence.
Reference:
Ext.A4
Document Type:
Rejoinder Lawyer's Notice
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Copy of rejoinder lawyer's notice dated 23.05.2023, admitted and marked in evidence.
Reference:
Ext.A5
Document Type:
Oral Evidence
Submitted By:
Unknown
Relevance:
Unrebutted oral testimony of PW1 established the petitioners' case.
Reference:
Case Classification
Case Type
Rent Control
Category
Eviction and Rent Control
District
Ernakulam
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court, Ernakulam
Common Reasons
Case Code
Case between Dr. M.N Subramanian et al vs M/s Su @ Park Institutions Pvt Ltd et al regarding Rent Control
Case Code Year
Case between Dr. M.N Subramanian et al vs M/s Su @ Park Institutions Pvt Ltd et al regarding Rent Control