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

Main navigation

  • Home
  • Lawyer Login
  • Lawyer Registration
RENT CONTROL PETITION No. 20 OF 2016

Case between Dr.Hassan Bava vs Thondalii Krishnankutty regarding eviction under Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act.

Court
COURT OF THE RENT CONTROL OF TIRUR
Judge
Sri. JANKISH NARAYANAN
Order Date
2019-09-26
Duration

Judgement document from eCourt website

Open judgment PDF (eCourt)
Find Similar Cases

Case Summary

Dr.Hassan Bava filed a petition for eviction against Thondalii Krishnankutty, who is running a tailoring shop in a property owned by Bava. The petitioner claims he needs the space for his dental clinic as his patients are elderly and have trouble accessing the clinic on the first floor.

Judgment Outcome

Plaintiff Won
Interim Order
The petition for eviction was allowed in favor of the petitioner as the court found his need for additional accommodation bona fide.
Judgment Favored
Plaintiff
Relief Granted
The respondent is directed to give vacant possession of the petition schedule shop room bearing No. 21/315 of the Tirur Municipality to the petitioner within three months.
Case Type
Rent Control Petition
Final Judgment
No
Why Plaintiff Won:
The court established that the petitioner's requirement for additional accommodation was genuine and bona fide.

Judgment Evidence:

In the result, the petition is allowed under S. 11(8) of the Kerala Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act as follows: I. The respondent is directed to give vacant possession of the petition schedule shop room bearing No. 21/315 of the Tirur Municipality to the petitioner within three months from today.

Parties Involved

Plaintiffs

Dr.Hassan Bava (51 years years) Fajar, Poongottukulam, Tirur Taluk

Defendants

Thondalii Krishnankutty (63 years years) Ronex Tailors, M.P.O. Building, Poongottukulam, Tirur Taluk

Reliefs

Relief Type: Eviction
Outcome: Granted
Description:
The petitioner was granted eviction of the respondent from the shop room.
Evidence:
Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to get an order of eviction under S. 11(8) of the Kerala Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act 1965.
Relief Type: Recovery
Outcome: Granted
Description:
The petitioner was granted the right to realise costs from the respondent.
Evidence:
So the petitioner is entitled to realise the costs of the proceedings from respondents.

Documents & Evidence

Document Type: Copy of Registered Lawyer Notice
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document was used to show that the petitioner issued a notice demanding the surrender of the shop room.
Reference:
Ext.A1(a)
Document Type: Postal receipt
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document was used as evidence of sending the notice to the respondent.
Reference:
Ext.A1(b)
Document Type: Reply Notice
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document contains the respondent's reply to the petitioner's notice.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type: Tax receipt
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document was relevant to establish ownership and the ongoing business tax obligations.
Reference:
Ext.A3
Document Type: Ownership Certificate
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document was used to prove the petitioner's ownership of the shop room.
Reference:
Ext.A4
Document Type: Copy of building tax assessment register
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
This document was presented by the respondent to argue the availability of other rooms in the building.
Reference:
Ext.B1 series
Document Type: Commission Report
Submitted By: Court
Relevance:
This report was submitted by the Advocate Commissioner during the property inspection.
Reference:
Ext.C1
Document Type: Commission Plan
Submitted By: Court
Relevance:
This plan illustrated the layout and details of the property in question.
Reference:
Ext.C2

Quick Facts

Location
Case Filed
Outcome Confidence
100%

Involved Entities

Similar Cases