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

Main navigation

  • Home
  • Lawyer Login
  • Lawyer Registration
RENT CONTROL PETITION NO. 18 OF 2018

Case between Koyassan Haji vs Vaduvath Azeez regarding eviction of shop rooms.

Court
RENT CONTROL COURT
Judge
Sri. Jankish Narayanan
Order Date
2019-11-30
Duration

Judgement document from eCourt website

Open judgment PDF (eCourt)
Find Similar Cases

Case Summary

Koyassan Haji filed a petition against Vaduvath Azeez for eviction from shop rooms due to non-payment of rent. The court found that the respondent had not occupied the premises for over a year without reasonable cause.

Judgment Outcome

Plaintiff Won
Interim Order
The court allowed the petition for eviction, directing the respondent to give vacant possession of the shop rooms within three months. The respondent can avoid eviction by paying the arrears of rent.
Judgment Favored
Plaintiff
Relief Granted
Eviction of the respondent from the shop rooms.
Case Type
Rent Control Petition
Final Judgment
No
Why Plaintiff Won:
The petitioner proved the bona fide need for the shop rooms and the respondent's prolonged absence.

Judgment Evidence:

In the result, the petition is allowed under Sections 11(2), 11 (3), 11 (4)(ii) and 11 (4)(v) of the Kerala Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 as follows: 1. The respondent is directed to give vacant possession of the petition schedule building to the petitioner within three months from today.

Parties Involved

Plaintiffs

Koyassan Haji (63 years) Naduvattom amsom, desom and post, Tirur Taluk

Defendants

Vaduvath Azeez (55 years) Tirur amsom, desom, PO. Pookkayil Bazar, Tirur Taluk

Reliefs

Relief Type: Eviction
Outcome: Granted
Description:
Eviction of the respondent from the petition schedule building.
Evidence:
Therefore, the petitioner is entitled for an order of eviction under Sections 11(2), 11 (3), 11 (4) (ii) and 11 (4) (v) of the Kerala Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965.
Relief Type: Recovery
Outcome: Granted
Description:
The petitioner is entitled to realize the costs of the petition from the respondent.
Evidence:
So the petitioner is entitled to realize the cost of the proceedings from the respondent.

Documents & Evidence

Document Type: Lawyer Notice
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
The petitioner issued a lawyer notice to the respondent demanding the surrender of vacant possession of the petition schedule building.
Reference:
Exbt. A1
Document Type: Postal receipt
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
The postal receipt was related to the service of the lawyer notice.
Reference:
Exbt. A1(b)
Document Type: Unserved Letter
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
The unserved letter indicates that the respondent evaded receipt of the lawyer notice.
Reference:
Exbt. A1(c)

Quick Facts

Location
TIRUR
Case Filed
Outcome Confidence
90%

Involved Entities

Similar Cases