RCP. No. 37/2016

Case between Jose Mathew et al vs Binoy George et al regarding fair rent fixation

Court
COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL RENT CONTROLLER
Judge
Smt. Jyothi Babu R.
Order Date
2025-11-28
Duration
approximately-19 years 3 months
Case Closed
Fri, 11/28/2025 - 12:00

Judgement document from eCourt website

Save Case Find Similar Cases

Case Summary

The petitioners, owners of Kudakaseril buildings, seek to fix fair rent for a commercial room occupied by the counter petitioners, who are tenants. The counter petitioners dispute ownership and the necessity for rent fixation.

Judgment Outcome

Plaintiff Won
Interim Order
The court allowed the petition and fixed the fair rent for the scheduled room at Rs. 28 per square foot from the date of filing the petition.
Judgment Favored
Plaintiff
Relief Granted
Fixed the fair rent at Rs. 28 per square foot
Case Type
Rent Control Petition
Final Judgment
No
The court allowed the petition and fixed the fair rent for the scheduled room at Rs. 28 per square foot from the date of filing the petition.
Why Plaintiff Won:
The petitioners proved ownership and entitlement to fair rent fixation under the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act.
Losing Side's Weaknesses:
The petitioners proved ownership and entitlement to fair rent fixation under the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act.
Supporting Evidence
The court held that despite periodic rent enhancements, the petitioners were entitled to have fair rent fixed based on current market conditions and inflation.

Judgment Evidence:

In the result, petition is allowed as follows: 1. The fair rent of the petition schedule building shall be fixed @ Rs. 28 per square feet from the date of filing of the petition.

Parties Involved

Parties

Party Role
Plaintiff
Party Name
Jose Mathew
Party Age
45
Relation
S/o
Party Role
Plaintiff
Party Name
Dr. K J Mathew
Party Age
77
Relation
S/o
Party Role
Plaintiff
Party Name
Aleykutty Joseph
Party Age
77
Relation
W/o
Party Role
Plaintiff
Party Name
Merliz Stanley
Party Age
52
Relation
W/o
Party Role
Plaintiff
Party Name
Rani Xavier
Party Age
51
Relation
W/o
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
Binoy George
Party Age
44
Relation
S/o
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
Gopakumar G
Party Age
53
Relation
S/o
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
Lijo Oommen
Party Age
50
Relation
S/o
Plaintiffs Documents
Copy of Settlement Deed no. 2597/2013, Copy of Lease Deed no. 1275/2013, Copy of Lease Deed no. 2474/2015, Copy of Lease Deed no. 2372/2017, Copy of Lease Deed no. 887/2018, Copy of Deed of License, Receipt of Kottayam Municipality, Tax receipt.
Defendants Documents
Copy of Order of RCP no. 32/2016, Copy of Supplementary Agreement.

Advocates

Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
Adv. Sajan A Varghese
Appearance Type
Main Counsel
Party Role
Defendant
Advocate Name
Adv. Joseph Abraham
Appearance Type
Main Counsel
Party Role
Defendant
Advocate Name
Adv. Sony Sebastian
Appearance Type
Main Counsel
Party Role
Defendant
Advocate Name
Adv. Yadhu Krishnan
Appearance Type
Main Counsel

Reliefs

Relief Type: Recovery
Outcome: Granted
Description:
The fair rent of the petition schedule building shall be fixed @ Rs.28 per square feet from the date of filing of the petition.
Evidence:
In the light of the above discussion, it can be held that the petitioner is entitled to get the fair rent fixed @ 28/- per square feet.
Relief Type: Other
Outcome: Not Decided
Description:
Costs were a point raised but no specific order was made regarding costs.
Evidence:
Considering the facts and circumstances of the petition, the parties shall suffer their respective costs.

Documents & Evidence

Document Type: Settlement Deed
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Copy of Settlement Deed no. 2597/2013
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type: Lease Deed
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Copy of Lease Deed no. 1275/2013
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type: Lease Deed
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Copy of Lease Deed no. 2474/2015
Reference:
Ext.A3
Document Type: Lease Deed
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Copy of Lease Deed no. 2372/2017
Reference:
Ext.A4
Document Type: Lease Deed
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Copy of Lease Deed no. 887/2018
Reference:
Ext.A5
Document Type: Deed of license
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Copy of Deed of License
Reference:
Ext.A6
Document Type: Deed of license
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Copy of Deed of License
Reference:
Ext.A7
Document Type: Receipt
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Receipt of Kottayam Municipality
Reference:
Ext.A8
Document Type: Tax receipt
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Tax receipt
Reference:
Ext.A9
Document Type: Agreement
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Agreement dated 18.09.2006
Reference:
Ext.A10
Document Type: Objection and Statement of Account
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Objection and Statement of Account
Reference:
Ext.A11
Document Type: Order
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
Copy of Order of RCP no. 32/2016
Reference:
Ext.B1
Document Type: Supplementary Agreement
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
Copy of Supplementary Agreement
Reference:
Ext.B2
Document Type: Receipt
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
Receipt
Reference:
Ext.B3
Document Type: Receipt
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
Receipt
Reference:
Ext.B3(a)
Document Type: Receipt
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
Receipt
Reference:
Ext.B3(b)
Document Type: Receipt
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
Receipt
Reference:
Ext.B3(c)
Document Type: Receipt
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
Receipt
Reference:
Ext.B3(d)
Document Type: Receipt
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
Receipt
Reference:
Ext.B3(e)
Document Type: Receipt
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
Receipt
Reference:
Ext.B3(f)
Document Type: Receipt
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
Receipt
Reference:
Ext.B3(g)
Document Type: Commission Report
Submitted By: Court
Relevance:
Commission Report
Reference:
Ext.C1
Document Type: Rough Sketch
Submitted By: Court
Relevance:
Rough Sketch
Reference:
Ext.C1(a)
Document Type: Commission Report
Submitted By: Court
Relevance:
Commission Report
Reference:
Ext.C2
Document Type: Rough Sketch
Submitted By: Court
Relevance:
Rough Sketch
Reference:
Ext.C2(a)
Document Type: Oral Evidence
Submitted By: Unknown
Relevance:
Oral testimony from witnesses
Reference:

Case Classification

Case Type
Rent Control Petition
Category
Other Civil Cases
District
Kottayam
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court, Kottayam
Common Reasons
Case Code
Case between Jose Mathew et al vs Binoy George et al regarding fair rent fixation
Case Code Year
Case between Jose Mathew et al vs Binoy George et al regarding fair rent fixation

Quick Facts

Location
KOTTAYAM
District
Kottayam
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court, Kottayam
Case Filed
Wed, 08/02/2006 - 12:00
Case Closed
Fri, 11/28/2025 - 12:00
From
Wed, 10/01/2025 - 12:00
To
Wed, 12/31/2025 - 12:00
Outcome Confidence
90%

Involved Entities

Similar Cases

Case between Sulatha Mathew et al vs M/s Asianet Digital Net Work Private Company Ltd. regarding Rent Control Petition
Court of the Rent Controller, Kottayam
Rent Control Petition Defendant Won
Case between Sulatha Mathew vs M/s Asianet Digital Network Private Company Ltd. regarding rent control petition.
Munsiff's Court
Rent Control Petition Defendant Won
Case between Faisal M. E et al vs Sajith A.J regarding Rent Control Petition
THE RENT CONTROLLER
Rent Control Petition Defendant Won
Case between Jose Mathew et al vs Thomas John regarding possession of a building
Court of the Rent Controller, Kottayam
Rent Control Petition Plaintiff Won
Case between Annakutty A M vs Liz George regarding rent control
The Principal Rent Controller
Rent Control Petition Plaintiff Won