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

Main navigation

  • Home
  • Lawyer Login
  • Lawyer Registration
R.C.P. No. 46/2025

Case between Mr. Santo Davis vs M/S. ARIPPA RESTAURANT & RESTO BAR PRIVATE LIMITED regarding eviction due to rent arrears

Court
THE THIRD ADDL. MUNSIFF & RENT CONTROLLER, ERNAKULAM
Judge
SMT. REEJA R. NAIR.
Order Date
2025-07-10
Duration
approximately-2 years 5 months

Judgement document from eCourt website

Open judgment PDF (eCourt)
Find Similar Cases

Case Summary

Mr. Santo Davis, the petitioner, is seeking eviction of M/S. ARIPPA RESTAURANT & RESTO BAR PRIVATE LIMITED due to unpaid rent. The respondent has failed to pay rent for several months and has not responded to notices from the petitioner.

Judgment Outcome

Plaintiff Won
Interim Order
The petition for eviction was allowed, requiring the respondent to vacate the premises due to non-payment of rent.
Judgment Favored
Plaintiff
Relief Granted
Respondent is directed to put the landlord in possession of the petition schedule building within 30 days.
Case Type
Rent Control Petition
Final Judgment
No
Why Plaintiff Won:
The petitioner’s claim was established through unrebutted oral testimony and evidence.

Judgment Evidence:

In the result, the petition is allowed u/sec. 11(2)(b) Act with costs as follows:- 1.The respondents/tenant is directed to put the landlord/petitioner in possession of the petition schedule building within 30 days from today.

Parties Involved

Plaintiffs

Mr. Santo Davis (43 years years) Mareena House, Ernakulam North P.O, Kaloor, Ernakulam, PIN-682018

Defendants

M/S. ARIPPA RESTAURANT & RESTO BAR PRIVATE LIMITED (38 years years) Ground Floor, 'Ambady Building', Opposite to Shenoy's Theater, MG Road, Ernakulam-682035

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 petition is allowed u/sec. 11(2)(b) Act with costs.
Relief Type: Cost Recovery
Outcome: Granted
Description:
The petitioner is entitled to get the 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: Lawyer's Notice
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
The lawyer's notice dated 16.07.2024 was sent to the respondent demanding vacant possession due to unpaid rent.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type: Postal receipt
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
The postal receipt dated 18.07.2024 shows that a registered notice was issued to the respondent.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type: Postal Cover with Acknowledgment Card
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
The postal cover with acknowledgment card returned with an endorsement 'unclaimed' was marked to show the notice sent was unclaimed.
Reference:
Ext.A3

Quick Facts

Location
Ernakulam
Case Filed
Wed, 02/01/2023 - 12:00
Outcome Confidence
90%

Involved Entities

Private Individual

Similar Cases