Case Summary
Erachampatt Haleema filed a petition seeking eviction of M.Sreenivasan from a shop room, claiming bona fide need to start a business. The respondent contended that he relies on the income from the shop room for his livelihood.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Plaintiff
Relief Granted
The respondent is directed to give vacant possession of the petition schedule shop rooms bearing No. 25/142 to the petitioner within three months.
Case Type
Rent Control Petition
Final Judgment
No
The petition for eviction was allowed, as the court found the landlord's need for the property to be genuine and bona fide. The respondent was ordered to vacate the shop room.
Why Plaintiff Won:
The petitioner successfully proved her genuine and bona fide need for the shop room to start her business.
The petitioner successfully proved her genuine and bona fide need for the shop room to start her business.
Losing Side's Weaknesses:
The petitioner successfully proved her genuine and bona fide need for the shop room to start her business.
The petitioner successfully proved her genuine and bona fide need for the shop room to start her business.
Supporting Evidence
After considering the evidence, as discussed above, I am satisfied that the petitioner has successfully proved that she bona fide requires the shop room for her proposed business.
Judgment Evidence:
In the result, the petition is allowed under S. 11(3) 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 rooms bearing No. 25/142 to the petitioner within three months from today.
Parties Involved
Parties
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Erachampatt Haleema
- Party Age
- 55
- Relation
- W/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- M.Sreenivasan
- Party Age
- 58
- Relation
- S/o
Plaintiffs Documents
Certified copy of Tax Assessment Register, Copy of Lawyer Notice dated 28-12-2015, Reply notice dated 16-1-2016.
Defendants Documents
Advocates
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Sri.P.P.Basheer
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Sri.I.V.Rathish
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Sri.S.Hariharan
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
Reliefs
Relief Type:
Eviction
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
Eviction of the respondent from the petition schedule shop room.
Evidence:
The petitioner is entitled to get an order under S. 11(3) of the Kerala Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act 1965.
Relief Type:
Cost
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
Entitlement of the petitioner to realize costs of the proceedings from the respondent.
Evidence:
The petitioner is entitled to realise the costs of the petition from the respondents.
Documents & Evidence
Document Type:
Tax Assessment Register
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Certified copy of the property related to the petition.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type:
Lawyer Notice
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Copy of the notice demanding the surrender of vacant possession of the property.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type:
Reply Notice
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Reply to the demand for surrendering the property.
Reference:
Ext.A3
Document Type:
Commission Report
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
Report submitted by the Advocate Commissioner regarding the premises.
Reference:
Ext.C1
Document Type:
Commission Plan
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
Plan submitted by the Advocate Commissioner regarding the premises.
Reference:
Ext.C2
Case Classification
Case Type
Rent Control Petition
Category
Eviction and Rent Control
District
Malappuram
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court, Tirur / Rent Control Court
Common Reasons
Bona fide need for own occupation
Case Code
Case between Erachampatt Haleema vs M.Sreenivasan regarding eviction under Section 11 (3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965
Case Code Year
Case between Erachampatt Haleema vs M.Sreenivasan regarding eviction under Section 11 (3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965