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

Main navigation

  • Home
  • Lawyer Login
  • Lawyer Registration
R.C.P. No.28/2020

Case between Harikrishnan vs Mejo K.J. regarding eviction from leased property

Court
THE THIRD ADDL. MUNSIFF & RENT CONTROLLER
Judge
SRI. REGHUNATH N.S.
Order Date
2024-01-31
Duration
approximately-4 years 11 months

Judgement document from eCourt website

Open judgment PDF (eCourt)
Find Similar Cases

Case Summary

Harikrishnan, the petitioner, seeks to evict Mejo K.J., the respondent, from a leased property due to unauthorized subletting and material alterations to the property. The lease, originally for residential use, has been violated by the respondent using the property for commercial purposes.

Judgment Outcome

Plaintiff Won
Interim Order
The court allowed the petition for eviction, ordering the respondent to vacate the property within 30 days. The petitioner proved the grounds for eviction based on unauthorized use and alterations to the lease agreement.
Judgment Favored
Plaintiff
Relief Granted
Respondent directed to vacate the premises within 30 days
Case Type
Rent Control Petition
Final Judgment
No
Why Plaintiff Won:
The petitioner provided unchallenged evidence of violations of the lease agreement.

Judgment Evidence:

In the result, the petition is allowed with costs. The respondent/tenant is directed to put the petitioners/landlord in possession of the petition schedule building under Section 11(3) of the Act within 30 days from today.

Parties Involved

Plaintiffs

Harikrishnan (56 years) T.C. 27/2638, Kochu Kettidom, FOR A C 2, Forest Lane, Vazhuthacaud, Trivandrum-695 014

Defendants

Mejo K.J. (42 years) Kundukulam House, Parappur, Tholur, Thrissur-682552

Reliefs

Relief Type: Eviction
Outcome: Granted
Description:
The petitioner seeks to evict the respondent from the petition schedule building.
Evidence:
Therefore, it is found that the petitioner has proved his case, and therefore, he is entitled to get an order of eviction against the respondent, as he prayed for.
Relief Type: Possession
Outcome: Granted
Description:
The petitioner is granted possession of the petition schedule building.
Evidence:
The respondent/tenant is directed to put the petitioners/landlord in possession of the petition schedule building under Section 11(3) of the Act within 30 days from today.
Relief Type: Possession
Outcome: Granted
Description:
The petitioner is granted possession of the schedule building.
Evidence:
The respondent/tenant is directed to put the petitioners/landlord in possession of the schedule building under Section 11(4)(i) of the Act within 30 days from today.
Relief Type: Possession
Outcome: Granted
Description:
The petitioner is granted possession of the schedule building.
Evidence:
The respondent/tenant is directed to put the petitioners/landlord in possession of the schedule building under Section 11(4)(ii) of the Act within 30 days from today.

Documents & Evidence

Document Type: Lawyer Notice
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document was used to show that a notice was sent to the respondent demanding vacant possession.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type: Unserved Cover containing Lawyer Notice
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document was used to indicate that the lawyer notice was returned unserved.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type: Original lease agreement
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document was used to establish the terms of the lease between the petitioner and the respondent.
Reference:
Ext.A3

Quick Facts

Location
ERNAKULAM
Case Filed
Fri, 03/01/2019 - 12:00
Outcome Confidence
90%

Involved Entities

Similar Cases