Skip to main content
Niyamam AI Niyamam AI

Main navigation

  • Home
  • Lawyer Login
  • Lawyer Registration
  • About us
  • Contact
RCP.34/2014

Case between Moochikkadan Sooppy Haji et al vs Muhammed Basheer et al regarding eviction of tenant for bonafide requirement.

Court
COURT OF THE RENT CONTROLLER OF TIRUR
Judge
Smt. VINCY.T.V.
Order Date
2016-12-21
Duration
Case Code No.
34
Case Closed

Judgement document from eCourt website

Judgment Document
Save Case Find Similar Cases

Case Summary

Moochikkadan Sooppy Haji and Kunhimuhammed Haji filed petitions against various respondents including Muhammed Basheer for eviction from property they allege is needed for starting a supermarket. The respondents contest the eviction based on their current business operations.

Judgment Outcome

Plaintiff Won
Interim Order
The court allowed the eviction petitions filed by the plaintiffs under section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, directing the respondents to vacate the premises for bonafide requirements.
Judgment Favored
Plaintiff
Relief Granted
The respondents are directed to put the petitioners in vacant possession of the petition schedule building within two months.
Case Type
Rent Control Petition
Final Judgment
No
The court allowed the eviction petitions filed by the plaintiffs under section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, directing the respondents to vacate the premises for bonafide requirements.
Why Plaintiff Won:
The court found the petitioners have a bonafide need for the premises for starting a supermarket and there was no sufficient evidence from the respondents to support their claims.
Losing Side's Weaknesses:
The court found the petitioners have a bonafide need for the premises for starting a supermarket and there was no sufficient evidence from the respondents to support their claims.
Supporting Evidence
Considering the evidence on record and other evidence, I find no reason to disbelieve the bonafide need put forward by the petitioners.

Judgment Evidence:

In the result, RCP.34/2014 to 38/2014 are allowed under section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 as follows: The respondents in RCP.34/2014 to 38/2014 are directed to put the petitioners in vacant possession of the petition schedule building within two months from today.

Parties Involved

Parties

Party Role
Plaintiff
Party Name
Moochikkadan Sooppy Haji
Party Age
74
Relation
S/o Kunhimoideen
Party Role
Plaintiff
Party Name
Kunhimuhammed Haji
Party Age
51
Relation
S/o Muhammed Kutty
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
Muhammed Basheer
Relation
S/o Late Abdullakkutty
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
P.T. Asainar
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
Kuryakkose
Relation
S/o Chakkunni
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
Narayanan
Relation
S/o Subbayya Naidu
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
Moideenkutty
Relation
S/o Kunnath parambil Koyakkutty
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
Saidalavi
Relation
S/o Pevumkattil Kunhimuhammed
Plaintiffs Documents
Copy of Lawyer Notice dated 08-01-2014, Ownership Certificate, Building Tax Receipts
Defendants Documents
Copy of Building Tax Assessment Register

Advocates

Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
Sri.V. Chandrasekharan
Appearance Type
Main Counsel
Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
Sri.Vipin Chandrasekhar
Appearance Type
Main Counsel
Party Role
Defendant
Advocate Name
Sri. Dinesh Pookayil
Appearance Type
Main Counsel
Party Role
Defendant
Advocate Name
Sri.P.Sreehari
Appearance Type
Main Counsel

Reliefs

Relief Type: Eviction
Outcome: Granted
Description:
Petitioners sought eviction of respondents for bonafide needs.
Evidence:
Considering the evidence on record and other evidence, I find no reason to disbelieve the bonafide need put forward by the petitioners.
Relief Type: Eviction
Outcome: Refused
Description:
Petitioners sought to prove subletting by the respondent.
Evidence:
There is no material on record to show that the petition schedule room in RCP.34/2014 is sublet by the respondent.
Relief Type: Eviction
Outcome: Refused
Description:
Petitioners sought to prove subletting by the respondent.
Evidence:
There is no evidence on record to support the claim of subletting by the respondent.

Documents & Evidence

Document Type: Lawyer Notice
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Issued to direct the respondent to vacate the room.
Reference:
Ext.A1(a)
Document Type: Postal receipt
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Proof of sending the lawyer notice.
Reference:
Ext.A1(b)
Document Type: Acknowledgment card
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Confirmation of receipt of the lawyer notice by the respondent.
Reference:
Ext.A1(c)
Document Type: Lawyer Notice
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Issued to direct the respondent to vacate the room.
Reference:
Ext.A2(a)
Document Type: Postal receipt
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Proof of sending the lawyer notice.
Reference:
Ext.A2(b)
Document Type: Acknowledgment card
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Confirmation of receipt of the lawyer notice by the respondent.
Reference:
Ext.A2(c)
Document Type: Lawyer Notice
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Issued to direct the respondent to vacate the room.
Reference:
Ext.A3(a)
Document Type: Postal receipt
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Proof of sending the lawyer notice.
Reference:
Ext.A3(b)
Document Type: Acknowledgment card
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Confirmation of receipt of the lawyer notice by the respondent.
Reference:
Ext.A3(c)
Document Type: Lawyer Notice
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Issued to direct the respondent to vacate the room.
Reference:
Ext.A4(a)
Document Type: Postal receipt
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Proof of sending the lawyer notice.
Reference:
Ext.A4(b)
Document Type: Acknowledgment card
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Confirmation of receipt of the lawyer notice by the respondent.
Reference:
Ext.A4(c)
Document Type: Lawyer Notice
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Issued to direct the respondent to vacate the room.
Reference:
Ext.A5(a)
Document Type: Postal receipt
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Proof of sending the lawyer notice.
Reference:
Ext.A5(b)
Document Type: Acknowledgment card
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Confirmation of receipt of the lawyer notice by the respondent.
Reference:
Ext.A5(c)
Document Type: Ownership Certificate
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Provides proof of ownership of the petition schedule building.
Reference:
Ext.A6(a)
Document Type: Ownership Certificate
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Provides proof of ownership of the petition schedule building.
Reference:
Ext.A6(b)
Document Type: Ownership Certificate
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Provides proof of ownership of the petition schedule building.
Reference:
Ext.A6(c)
Document Type: Building Tax Receipt
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Evidence of tax payment for the building.
Reference:
Ext.A7(a)
Document Type: Building Tax Receipt
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Evidence of tax payment for the building.
Reference:
Ext.A7(b)
Document Type: Building Tax Receipt
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Evidence of tax payment for the building.
Reference:
Ext.A7(c)
Document Type: Building Tax Receipt
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Evidence of tax payment for the building.
Reference:
Ext.A7(d)
Document Type: Building Tax Receipt
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Evidence of tax payment for the building.
Reference:
Ext.A7(e)
Document Type: Building Tax Receipt
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Evidence of tax payment for the building.
Reference:
Ext.A7(f)
Document Type: Letter from Secretary, Tirur Municipality
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Official correspondence regarding property details.
Reference:
Ext.A8
Document Type: Letter from Secretary, Tirur Municipality
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Official correspondence regarding property details.
Reference:
Ext.A9
Document Type: Kanam Assignment Deed
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Document regarding assignment of property rights.
Reference:
Ext.A10
Document Type: Commissioner's Report
Submitted By: Unknown
Relevance:
Court exhibit reviewing the condition of the petition schedule room.
Reference:
Ext.C1
Document Type: Plan
Submitted By: Unknown
Relevance:
Court exhibit providing layout details of the petition schedule room.
Reference:
Ext.C2
Document Type: Commissioner's Report
Submitted By: Unknown
Relevance:
Court exhibit reviewing the condition of the petition schedule room.
Reference:
Ext.C3
Document Type: Plan
Submitted By: Unknown
Relevance:
Court exhibit providing layout details of the petition schedule room.
Reference:
Ext.C4

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
Case Code
RCP.
Case Code Year
2014

Quick Facts

Location
District
Malappuram
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court, Tirur / Rent Control Court
Case Filed
Case Closed
From
Thu, 12/01/2016 - 12:00
To
Sat, 12/31/2016 - 12:00
Outcome Confidence
95%

Involved Entities

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 Parayil Muhammedkutty vs Kinassery Parambil Sugathan regarding rental agreement settlement
Rent Controller of Tirur
Rent Control Petition Partial
Case between Beeran Haji vs Ali regarding rent control petition
Rent Controller of Tirur
Rent Control Petition Plaintiff Won
Case between Kunhimohammed Haji vs K.P. Saidalavi regarding rent control petition
Court of the Rent Controller of Tirur
Rent Control Petition Dismissed
Case between Kunhimohammed Haji vs Vanaja Valliyil regarding Rent Control
Court of the Rent Controller of Tirur
Rent Control Petition Plaintiff Won