Case Summary
The petitioners, Mansoor Shams and his wife Jaseela, seek to evict Seetta G.S., their tenant who failed to pay rent and vacate the premises after the lease expired. The court found the petitioners' claims valid and unchallenged by the respondent.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Plaintiff
Relief Granted
The respondent/tenant is directed to put the landlord/petitioner in possession of the petition schedule building within 30 days.
Case Type
Rent Control Petition
Final Judgment
No
The petition for eviction was allowed due to the tenant's failure to pay rent and comply with the lease agreement. The tenant must vacate the premises within 30 days.
Why Plaintiff Won:
The petitioners proved their entitlement to eviction under Section 11(2)(b) and 11(3) of the Act due to failure to pay rent and bona fide need for occupation.
The petitioners proved their entitlement to eviction under Section 11(2)(b) and 11(3) of the Act due to failure to pay rent and bona fide need for occupation.
Losing Side's Weaknesses:
The petitioners proved their entitlement to eviction under Section 11(2)(b) and 11(3) of the Act due to failure to pay rent and bona fide need for occupation.
The petitioners proved their entitlement to eviction under Section 11(2)(b) and 11(3) of the Act due to failure to pay rent and bona fide need for occupation.
Supporting Evidence
The uncorroborated evidence of PW1 and Exts. A1 to A4 series proves the case of PW1. Thus the bonafide need was also projected by the petitioners in petition schedule property u/S.11(3) of the Act.
Judgment Evidence:
Hence, point No. 1 found in favor of the petitioner, and are entitled to get a relief under section 11(2)(b) of the Act.
Parties Involved
Parties
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Mansoor Shams
- Party Age
- 65
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Jaseela, Mansoor
- Party Age
- 57
- Relation
- Wife of Mansoor Shams
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Seetta G.S.
- Party Age
- 24
- Relation
- D/o
Plaintiffs Documents
Lease Agreement dated 20.05.2023, Copy of the Lawyer's notice dated 06.12.2024, Postal receipt, Returned envelope along with acknowledgment card.
Defendants Documents
Advocates
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Manju Antoney
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
Reliefs
Relief Type:
Eviction
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
The respondent/tenant is directed to put the landlord/petitioner in possession of the petition schedule building.
Evidence:
The respondent/tenant is directed to put the landlord/petitioner in possession of the petition schedule building within 30 days from today.
Relief Type:
Recovery
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
The petitioner is entitled to recover costs of the petition from the respondent.
Evidence:
The petitioner is entitled to get the costs of the petition from the respondent.
Documents & Evidence
Document Type:
Lease Agreement
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
The lease agreement establishes the terms under which the respondent was to vacate the building.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type:
Copy of the lawyer's notice
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
This notice was sent to inform the respondent of the need to vacate the premises.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type:
Postal receipt
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
The postal receipt serves as proof of sending the lawyer's notice to the respondent.
Reference:
Ext.A3
Document Type:
Returned envelope along with acknowledgment card
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
This exhibits evidence of the respondent's refusal to accept the lawyer's notice.
Reference:
Ext.A4 series
Case Classification
Case Type
Rent Control Petition
Category
Eviction and Rent Control
District
Ernakulam
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court, Ernakulam
Common Reasons
Non-payment of rent
Case Code
Case between Mansoor Shams et al vs Seetta G.S. regarding eviction under the Kerala Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act.
Case Code Year
Case between Mansoor Shams et al vs Seetta G.S. regarding eviction under the Kerala Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act.