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

Main navigation

  • Home
  • Lawyer Login
  • Lawyer Registration
R.C.P. No. 130/2023

Case between Mary Johnson vs Shaheen T.P. regarding eviction and recovery of arrears

Court
THE COURT OF THE THIRD ADDL. MUNSIFF & RENT CONTROLLER
Judge
SMT. REEJA R. NAIR.
Order Date
2024-06-29
Duration
approximately-1 years 6 days

Judgement document from eCourt website

Open judgment PDF (eCourt)
Find Similar Cases

Case Summary

Mary Johnson, the landlord, seeks to evict Shaheen T.P., the tenant, for non-payment of rent and recovery of arrears. The petition filed under the Kerala Buildings Lease & Rent Control Act cites the tenant's failure to vacate the premises despite repeated requests.

Judgment Outcome

Plaintiff Won
Interim Order
The court allowed the eviction petition filed by Mary Johnson against Shaheen T.P. due to non-payment of rent. The respondent is ordered to vacate the premises within 30 days.
Judgment Favored
Plaintiff
Relief Granted
Eviction of the tenant and recovery of costs
Case Type
Rent Control Petition
Final Judgment
No
Why Plaintiff Won:
The petitioner complied with the legal requirements under the Kerala Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act.

Judgment Evidence:

In the result, The petition is allowed u/S 11(2)(b) and 11(3) with costs. The respondent/tenant is directed to put the landlord/ petitioner in possession of the petition schedule building under Section 11(ii) and 11(3) of the Act within 30 days from today.

Parties Involved

Plaintiffs

Mary Johnson (59 years) Panakkal House, Ayyappankauv, Ernakulam, Kochi­682 018

Defendants

Shaheen T.P. (45 years) American Fried Chicken, Panakkal Building, Near Lens Kart, K.K. Road, Kadavanthara, ernakulam­682 020

Reliefs

Relief Type: Eviction
Outcome: Granted
Description:
The petitioner sought eviction of the respondent from the premises.
Evidence:
In the result, The petition is allowed u/S 11(2)(b) and 11(3) with costs.
Relief Type: Recovery
Outcome: Granted
Description:
The petitioner sought recovery of arrears from November 2022 along with unpaid electricity charges.
Evidence:
Therefore, the petitioner seeks eviction of the respondent and recovery of arrears from November 2022 along with the unpaid electricity charges.

Documents & Evidence

Document Type: Undelivered Lawyer's notice with sealed envelope and A/D card
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
The document was used to demonstrate that the respondent received lawyer notices that went undelivered.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type: Postal receipt
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
The document was used to verify the sending of a lawyer notice.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type: Undelivered Lawyer's notice with sealed envelope and A/D card
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
The document was used to show another lawyer notice that was undelivered.
Reference:
Ext.A3
Document Type: Postal Receipts
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
The document supports the claims made by the petitioner regarding the mailings.
Reference:
Ext.A4
Document Type: Electricity bill (subject to proof)
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
The document was referenced to support claims of unpaid electricity charges.
Reference:
Ext.A5
Document Type: Original Receipt for the Electricity bill
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
The document shows the payment made for the electricity bill in question.
Reference:
Ext.A6

Quick Facts

Location
ERNAKULAM
Case Filed
Fri, 07/01/2022 - 12:00
Outcome Confidence
90%

Involved Entities

Similar Cases