Case Summary
The petitioners, owners of a building, seek eviction of the respondent for non-payment of rent. The respondent has failed to comply with court orders related to the payment of rent arrears.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Plaintiff
Relief Granted
The respondent is directed to put the landlord in possession of the petition schedule building within 30 days.
Case Type
Rent Control Petition
Final Judgment
No
The court allowed the petition for eviction based on the failure of the respondent to pay rent. The respondent is directed to vacate the premises within 30 days.
Why Plaintiff Won:
The petitioners established the grounds of eviction due to non-payment of rent and the respondent's continued absence during the proceedings.
The petitioners established the grounds of eviction due to non-payment of rent and the respondent's continued absence during the proceedings.
Losing Side's Weaknesses:
Not available
Not available
Supporting Evidence
The unrebutted oral testimony of PW1 and Exts. A1(a) to A8 established petitioners case as pleaded by them. The bonafide need was projected by the petitioners. It shows that the rent is in arrears.
Judgment Evidence:
In the result, The petition is allowed u/s 11(2)(b), 11(3), 11(4)(i), 11(4)(iii), 11(4)(v) of the Act with costs as follows:- 1.The respondent/tenant is 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
- Haridasan Mathilakath
- Party Age
- 72
- Relation
- S/O
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Kanakam Haridas
- Party Age
- 71
- Relation
- W/O
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Sidharth Haridas
- Party Age
- 28
- Relation
- S/O
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Francis Vaidyan's Ayurveda Vaidyasala Pvt.Ltd
- Relation
- Represented by
Plaintiffs Documents
Common judgment in RCA 33/20 and 34/20, Certified copy of resolution passed by Board of Directors of Fuji Technical Services Pvt. Ltd., Copy of lawyer's notice dated 04.08.2020, Original acknowledgment cards, Original reply notices.
Defendants Documents
Advocates
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Anjali N.
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- M.P. Ramnath
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Bepin Paul
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Sandhya S.
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Shalu Varghese
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- K. S. Akshay Mohan
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Sebastian K.J.
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- P. Rajesh Kottakkal
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Varghese Varghese
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Deepak S.
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Antony Tharian
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
Reliefs
Relief Type:
Eviction
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
Respondent/tenant is directed to put the landlord/petitioner in possession of the petition schedule building.
Evidence:
The petition is allowed u/s 11(2)(b), 11(3), 11(4)(i), 11(4)(iii), 11(4)(v) of the Act.
Relief Type:
Recovery
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
Petitioner entitled to get the costs of the petition from the respondent.
Evidence:
The petitioner is entitled to get the costs of the petition from the respondent.
Documents & Evidence
Document Type:
Common Judgment
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Initially marked but rejected due to lack of foundation for secondary evidence. Subsequently, accepted as Ext.A1(a) after submission of a certified copy.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type:
Certified copy of resolution
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Indicates a business resolution relevant to the petitioners' case.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type:
Lawyer's Notice
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Notice sent regarding the tenancy issues.
Reference:
Ext.A3
Document Type:
Lawyer's Notice
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Notice regarding a different floor of the plaintiff schedule property.
Reference:
Ext.A4
Document Type:
Original acknowledgment card
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Acknowledgment related to communication with the respondent.
Reference:
Ext.A5
Document Type:
Original acknowledgment card
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Another acknowledgment related to communication with the respondent.
Reference:
Ext.A6
Document Type:
Original Reply Notice
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
A reply notice issued by the respondent.
Reference:
Ext.A7
Document Type:
Original Reply Notice
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Another reply notice issued by the respondent.
Reference:
Ext.A8
Case Classification
Case Type
Rent Control Petition
Category
Eviction and Rent Control
District
Ernakulam
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court, Ernakulam
Common Reasons
Non-payment of rent
Case Code
Case between Haridasan Mathilakath et al vs Francis Vaidyan's Ayurveda Vaidyasala Pvt.Ltd regarding eviction proceedings.
Case Code Year
Case between Haridasan Mathilakath et al vs Francis Vaidyan's Ayurveda Vaidyasala Pvt.Ltd regarding eviction proceedings.