Case Summary
Petitioner seeks eviction of respondent from rented property for bonafide need of expanding his business. Respondent failed to vacate despite rent arrears and bonafide need proved by petitioner.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Plaintiff
Relief Granted
Eviction Order
Case Type
Rent Control Petition
Final Judgment
No
Petition granted, directing respondent to vacate the property within one month.
Why Plaintiff Won:
The petitioner proved bonafide need for expanding business and absence of suitable alternative for the respondent.
The petitioner proved bonafide need for expanding business and absence of suitable alternative for the respondent.
Losing Side's Weaknesses:
The petitioner proved bonafide need for expanding business and absence of suitable alternative for the respondent.
The petitioner proved bonafide need for expanding business and absence of suitable alternative for the respondent.
Supporting Evidence
There is nothing on record to non suit the petitioner under the first proviso to S.11 (3) of Kerala Building Act 1965.
Judgment Evidence:
The petition is allowed under section 11(3) of the Kerala Building Act 1965 as follows: The respondent is directed to put the petitioner in vacant possession of the petition schedule property within one month from today.
Parties Involved
Parties
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Kunhi Marakkar. C.P
- Party Age
- 47
- Relation
- S/o.Abdulla
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Blangattu Parambil Abdul Rehiman
- Party Age
- 65
- Relation
- S/o. Moideenkutty
Plaintiffs Documents
Lawyer Notice, Postal Receipt, Acknowledgement Card, Reply Notice
Defendants Documents
Not available
Advocates
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Sri. Suresh. A. Alingal
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Smt. Shijina. A.K
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Sri. M.A. Ismail
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
Reliefs
Relief Type:
Eviction
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
Order for respondent to vacate the property within one month
Evidence:
The respondent is directed to put the petitioner in vacant possession of the petition schedule property within one month from today.
Documents & Evidence
Document Type:
Lawyer Notice
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Notice sent to respondent
Reference:
A1(a)
Document Type:
Postal receipt
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Proof of postage of notice to respondent
Reference:
A1(b)
Document Type:
Acknowledgement Card
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Acknowledgment of received notice
Reference:
A1(c)
Document Type:
Reply Notice
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Response to petitioner's notice
Reference:
A2
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
Bonafide need for business expansion
Case Code
Case between Kunhi Marakkar. C.P et al vs Blangattu Parambil Abdul Rehiman et al regarding eviction
Case Code Year
Case between Kunhi Marakkar. C.P et al vs Blangattu Parambil Abdul Rehiman et al regarding eviction