Case Summary
The petitioners, Mr. N.K.Balagopalan and his son Mr. Nidhin Babu, seek eviction of the respondent, Mr. Ahmed Rafeeq, from a shop room for their own bonafide need. The respondent contends that the petitioners' need is not genuine and seeks to dismiss the petition.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Defendant
Relief Granted
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The court dismissed the eviction petition under Section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, ruling that the petitioners did not establish a bonafide need for the shop room.
Key Reasoning:
The petitioners failed to prove a bonafide need as required by law.
The petitioners failed to prove a bonafide need as required by law.
Why Defendant Won:
The petitioners failed to prove a bonafide need as required by law.
The petitioners failed to prove a bonafide need as required by law.
Supporting Evidence
The court is not convinced with the need as projected by the petitioners as a bonafide one due to lack of evidence under Sec.11(3) of the Act.
Judgment Evidence:
The eviction sought under Section 11(3) of the Act is dismissed.
Parties Involved
Parties
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Mr. N.K.Balagopalan
- Party Age
- 67
- Relation
- S/o Late Dr Kumaran
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Mr Nidhin Babu
- Party Age
- 33
- Relation
- S/o Mr. N.K.Balagopalan
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Mr. Ahmed Rafeeq
- Party Age
- 42
- Relation
- Proprietor, 'Misriya'
Plaintiffs Documents
Office copy of Lawyer's notice, Acknowledgment card, Certified copy of the settlement deed No.2396/2018 of SRO, Tripunithura, Tax receipt, Certified copy of Sale deed No.2233/2023, Certified copy of Sale deed No.2234/2023
Defendants Documents
Certified copy of order in RCP 138/2014, Certified copy of rent control petition in RCP 138/2024, Photographs showing medical Clinic of the petitioner, Objection filed by the respondent in RCP 138/2014, Account book of the respondent pertaining to his business, VAT certificate of the respondent, Certified copy of sale deed No.2234/2023
Advocates
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- V.A. Johnson
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- T. Martin Jose
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Basil Mathew
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Sajan K.B.
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Amrutha Vidyadharan
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Vimal Dev
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
Reliefs
Relief Type:
Eviction
Outcome:
Refused
Description:
Request for eviction of the respondent from the petition schedule shop room.
Evidence:
The eviction sought under Section 11(3) of the Act is dismissed.
Documents & Evidence
Document Type:
Lawyer's Notice
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Issued to the respondent to vacate the tenanted premises.
Reference:
Ext.A3
Document Type:
Acknowledgment card
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Acknowledgment of the lawyer's notice issued to the respondent.
Reference:
Ext.A4
Document Type:
Settlement Deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Provides evidence of ownership of the petition schedule shop room by the first petitioner.
Reference:
Ext.A5
Document Type:
Tax receipt
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Supports the financial status of the petitioners.
Reference:
Ext.A6
Document Type:
Sale deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Establishes a sale transaction related to the ownership of the property.
Reference:
Ext.A7
Document Type:
Sale deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Establishes another sale transaction related to the ownership of the property.
Reference:
Ext.A8
Document Type:
Order
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
Final order on the earlier rent control petition related to the same building.
Reference:
Ext.B1
Document Type:
Rent Control Petition
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
Filed by the petitioners to challenge the eviction request.
Reference:
Ext.B2
Document Type:
Photograph
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
Shows the medical clinic of the petitioner in Eroor.
Reference:
Ext.B3
Document Type:
Photograph
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
Shows the medical clinic of the petitioner in Pananghad.
Reference:
Ext.B4
Document Type:
Photograph
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
Shows the medical clinic of the petitioner in Trippunithura.
Reference:
Ext.B5
Document Type:
Photograph
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
Shows another medical clinic of the petitioner in Eroor.
Reference:
Ext.B6
Document Type:
Objection
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
Filed by the respondent in RCP 138/2014.
Reference:
Ext.B7
Document Type:
Account book
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
Pertains to the business income of the respondent.
Reference:
Ext.B8
Document Type:
VAT certificate
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
Establishes the business operations of the respondent.
Reference:
Ext.B9(d)
Document Type:
Sale deed
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
Certified copy related to one of the sales of the property.
Reference:
Ext.B10
Document Type:
Commission Report
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
Filed by the advocate commissioner regarding the premises.
Reference:
Ext.C1
Case Classification
Case Type
Civil Suit
Category
Eviction and Rent Control
District
Ernakulam
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court, Ernakulam
Common Reasons
Eviction
Case Code
Case between Mr. N.K.Balagopalan et al vs Mr. Ahmed Rafeeq regarding eviction under the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 1965
Case Code Year
Case between Mr. N.K.Balagopalan et al vs Mr. Ahmed Rafeeq regarding eviction under the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 1965