Skip to main content
Niyamam AI Niyamam AI

Main navigation

  • Home
  • Lawyer Login
  • Lawyer Registration
  • About us
  • Contact
RENT CONTROL PETITION NO. 36 OF 2017

Case between Karimbanakkal Kunhimoideenkkutty's children et al vs Valliyengal Sidheek regarding eviction

Court
The Rent Controller of Tirur
Judge
Smt. VINCY.T.V.,B.A, L.L.B.
Order Date
2018-02-27
Duration
1 year
Case Closed
Tue, 02/27/2018 - 12:00

Judgement document from eCourt website

Judgment Document
Save Case Find Similar Cases

Case Summary

Petitioners seek eviction of respondent from a room they own to start a hotel business due to bonafide need.

Judgment Outcome

Plaintiff Won
Interim Order
The petition is allowed, directing the respondent to provide the petitioners with vacant possession of the room within one month.
Judgment Favored
Plaintiff
Relief Granted
Eviction and costs
Case Type
Rent Control Petition
Final Judgment
No
The petition is allowed, directing the respondent to provide the petitioners with vacant possession of the room within one month.
Why Plaintiff Won:
The petitioner's bonafide need for the room was established as the respondent did not challenge the evidence provided by the petitioners.
Losing Side's Weaknesses:
The petitioner's bonafide need for the room was established as the respondent did not challenge the evidence provided by the petitioners.
Supporting Evidence
Pw1 has stated that there is no other building for them to start the intended business. Hence I find no reason to disbelieve the bonofide need put forward by the petitioners.

Judgment Evidence:

The petition is allowed under section 11(3) of the Kerala Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act 1965.

Parties Involved

Parties

Party Role
Plaintiff
Party Name
Karimbanakkal Kunhimoideenkkutty's children
Relation
Children of Karimbanakkal Kunhimoideenkkutty
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
Valliyengal Sidheek
Party Age
53
Relation
Son of Pookar
Plaintiffs Documents
None
Defendants Documents
None

Advocates

Reliefs

Relief Type: Eviction
Outcome: Granted
Description:
Vacant possession of the room within one month
Evidence:
The petition is allowed under section 11(3) of the Kerala Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act 1965.
Relief Type: Costs
Outcome: Granted
Description:
Respondent to pay costs of the petition
Evidence:
None

Documents & Evidence

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
Eviction for personal bonafide need
Case Code
Case between Karimbanakkal Kunhimoideenkkutty's children et al vs Valliyengal Sidheek regarding eviction
Case Code Year
Case between Karimbanakkal Kunhimoideenkkutty's children et al vs Valliyengal Sidheek regarding eviction

Quick Facts

Location
Tirur
District
Malappuram
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court, Tirur / Rent Control Court
Case Filed
Mon, 02/27/2017 - 12:00
Case Closed
Tue, 02/27/2018 - 12:00
From
Thu, 02/01/2018 - 12:00
To
Wed, 02/28/2018 - 12:00
Outcome Confidence
100%

Involved Entities

Private Individual

Similar Cases

Case between Muhammed Faizal.P.T et al vs Sakeer Husain regarding rent control
Munsiff Magistrate Court
Rent Control Petition Dismissed
Case between Beeran Haji vs Ali regarding rent control petition
Rent Controller of Tirur
Rent Control Petition Plaintiff Won
Case between Kunhimohammed Haji vs Vanaja Valliyil regarding Rent Control
Court of the Rent Controller of Tirur
Rent Control Petition Plaintiff Won
Case between Kunhimohammed Haji vs Ajith Kumar.U. regarding rent dispute
Rent Controller of Tirur
Rent Control Petition Both (settled)
Case between Beeran Haji vs Habeeb Rehman regarding rent control
Rent Controller of Tirur
Rent Control Petition Plaintiff Won