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

Main navigation

  • Home
  • Lawyer Login
  • Lawyer Registration
R.C.P. No. 81/2016

Case between Erachampatt Raseena vs M.Sreenivasan regarding eviction due to bona fide need.

Court
RENT CONTROL COURT
Judge
Sri. JANKISH NARAYANAN
Order Date
2019-08-29
Duration

Judgement document from eCourt website

Open judgment PDF (eCourt)
Find Similar Cases

Case Summary

Erachampatt Raseena filed a petition seeking eviction of M.Sreenivasan for non-payment of rent and for possessing the shop room for her proposed footwear business. The respondent contended that he is dependent on the premises for his livelihood.

Judgment Outcome

Plaintiff Won
Interim Order
The court allowed the petitions for eviction as the petitioner established a bona fide need for the shop rooms to start a footwear business.
Judgment Favored
Plaintiff
Relief Granted
Respondent is directed to give vacant possession of the petition schedule shop rooms bearing No. 25/132 and 25/140.
Case Type
Rent Control Petition
Final Judgment
No
Why Plaintiff Won:
Petitioner proved her bona fide need for the premises.

Judgment Evidence:

In the result, both petitions as RCP 81/2016 & RCP 82/2016 are 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. 25/132 and 25/140 to the petitioner within three months from today.

Parties Involved

Plaintiffs

Erachampatt Raseena (38 years) Mankuzhiyil House, Veluyamcode North. PIN – 679579, Ponnani Taluk.

Defendants

M.Sreenivasan (58 years) Machalil House, Thalakkad amsom Mangattiri desom & Post, Tirur Taluk. PIN – 676 105.

Reliefs

Relief Type: Eviction
Outcome: Granted
Description:
The petitioner requested eviction of the respondent from the shop rooms due to bona fide need.
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 Recovery
Outcome: Granted
Description:
The petitioner sought to recover costs of the proceedings from the respondent.
Evidence:
So the petitioner is entitled to realise the cost of the proceedings from respondents.

Documents & Evidence

Document Type: Tax Assessment Register
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Certified copy of Tax Assessment Register was submitted to substantiate the ownership and background of the property.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type: Lawyer Notice
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Copy of Lawyer Notice dated 28-12-2015 was issued to the respondent demanding the surrender of vacant possession of the shop rooms.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type: Reply Notice
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Reply notice dated 16-1-2016 was considered as part of the evidence regarding the communication between parties.
Reference:
Ext.A3
Document Type: Tax Assessment Register
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Another Certified copy of Tax Assessment Register to support the claim of ownership.
Reference:
Ext.A4
Document Type: Profit and Loss Account
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
Copy of Profit and Loss Account of the business was submitted by the respondent to demonstrate financial dependency on the shop.
Reference:
Ext.B1
Document Type: Dealer Particulars
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
Details of dealer particulars provided by the respondent to support his business operations.
Reference:
Ext.B2
Document Type: Rent Control Petition
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
Copy of petition with summons in RCP 44/2016 referenced by the defendant in his defense.
Reference:
Ext.B3
Document Type: Rent Control Petition
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
Copy of petition in RCP 51/2016 mentioned to relate the ongoing disputes.
Reference:
Ext.B4
Document Type: Rent Control Petition
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
Copy of petition in RCP 116/2016 submitted by the defendant to provide context to his prior cases.
Reference:
Ext.B5
Document Type: Commission Report
Submitted By: Court
Relevance:
Commission report submitted by Advocate Commissioner to provide an assessment of the property.
Reference:
Ext.C1
Document Type: Commission Plan
Submitted By: Court
Relevance:
Commission plan submitted by Advocate Commissioner to illustrate the property layout.
Reference:
Ext.C2
Document Type: Commission Report
Submitted By: Court
Relevance:
Another Commission report submitted by Advocate Commissioner detailing observations.
Reference:
Ext.C3
Document Type: Commission Plan
Submitted By: Court
Relevance:
Another Commission plan submitted to provide further illustrative context about the property.
Reference:
Ext.C4

Quick Facts

Location
Tirur
Case Filed
Outcome Confidence
90%

Involved Entities

Similar Cases