Case Summary
The petitioners, Mrs. Betsy Prasant and Mr. Prasant Abraham, seek compliance of a rent control order against the respondent, Mr. Dinoj M.R. The court addressed the lack of compliance with previous orders and the consequences of such non-compliance.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Plaintiff
Relief Granted
Ordered to put the petitioner in vacant possession of the building forthwith.
Case Type
Rent Control Petition
Final Judgment
No
The court ordered that the respondent must comply with previous orders and put the petitioners in possession of the building due to non-compliance with the rent control order.
Why Plaintiff Won:
The respondent failed to comply with the court's orders and did not show sufficient cause for non-compliance.
The respondent failed to comply with the court's orders and did not show sufficient cause for non-compliance.
Losing Side's Weaknesses:
The respondent failed to comply with the court's orders and did not show sufficient cause for non-compliance.
The respondent failed to comply with the court's orders and did not show sufficient cause for non-compliance.
Supporting Evidence
The respondent has not complied with the order in RP 95/2024 or filed any show cause. The court found that more than ten months has elapsed without compliance.
Judgment Evidence:
Hence an order is passed under Section 12(3) of the Act stopping all the further proceedings in the rent control petition and directing the respondent to put the petitioner in vacant possession of the building forthwith.
Parties Involved
Parties
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Mrs: Betsy Prasant
- Party Age
- 66
- Relation
- W/o
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Mr. Prasant Abraham
- Party Age
- 70
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Mr. Dinoj M.R.
- Relation
- S/o
Plaintiffs Documents
Petitioners' Costs: Stamp on Rent Control Petition, Stamp on Vakalath, Stamp on petition, Stamp on Documents.
Defendants Documents
Respondent's Costs: Stamp on Vakalath, Stamp on petition.
Advocates
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- P. S. Nandanan
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- P. N. Anoop
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Salman K C
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Sandeep Sudhakaran M. S.
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Zakir Hussain
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
Reliefs
Relief Type:
Possession
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
The court directed the respondent to put the petitioner in vacant possession of the building forthwith.
Evidence:
Hence an order is passed under Section 12(3) of the Act stopping all the further proceedings in the rent control petition and directing the respondent to put the petitioner in vacant possession.
Documents & Evidence
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 Mrs: Betsy Prasant et al vs Mr. Dinoj M.R. regarding compliance of rent control order
Case Code Year
Case between Mrs: Betsy Prasant et al vs Mr. Dinoj M.R. regarding compliance of rent control order