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

Main navigation

  • Home
  • Lawyer Login
  • Lawyer Registration
R.C.P. No. 125/2021

Case between Mrs. Shoby Maijin vs Sherly Jose regarding eviction from petition schedule buildings

Court
COURT OF THE THIRD ADDL. MUNSIFF & RENT CONTROLLER, ERNAKULAM
Judge
SMT. REEJA R. NAIR.
Order Date
2025-07-02
Duration
approximately-4 years 1 month

Judgement document from eCourt website

Open judgment PDF (eCourt)
Find Similar Cases

Case Summary

Mrs. Shoby Maijin, the petitioner, seeks eviction of Sherly Jose, the respondent, from buildings under the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. The petitioner claims a bona fide need for the premises to start an optical business, while the respondent argues that she relies on the premises for her driving school and pollution testing center.

Judgment Outcome

Plaintiff Won
Interim Order
The court allowed both rent control petitions, directing the respondent to vacate the premises within 30 days. The petitioner established a bona fide need for the buildings.
Judgment Favored
Plaintiff
Relief Granted
Eviction of the respondent from the petition schedule buildings.
Case Type
Rent Control Petition
Final Judgment
No
Why Plaintiff Won:
The petitioner proved a bona fide need for the premises to start an optical business.

Judgment Evidence:

R.C.P 125/2021 and R.C.P 126/2021 are allowed. The respondent in both cases is directed to surrender vacant possession of the petition schedule buildings to the petitioner under Section 11(3) of the Act within 30 days from today.

Parties Involved

Plaintiffs

Mrs. Shoby Maijin (44 years) Madathiparambil House, 2Y, Blue Moon Pearl, Chettichira, Vyttila, Cochin

Defendants

Sherly Jose (null years) 53/3297, 1st Floor, Adimuri House, SRA 141, Sahakarana Road, Ponnurunny, Vyttila, Cochin-19

Reliefs

Relief Type: Recovery
Outcome: Granted
Description:
The petitioner sought recovery of possession of the premises.
Evidence:
R.C.P 125/2021 and R.C.P 126/2021 are allowed. The respondent in both cases is directed to surrender vacant possession of the petition schedule buildings to the petitioner under Section 11(3) of the Act within 30 days from today.

Documents & Evidence

Document Type: Legal Notice
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
The notice served by the petitioner to the respondent demanding vacation of the premises.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type: Reply Notice
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
The reply notice by the respondent in response to the petitioner's legal notice.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type: GST Registration
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Proof of the petitioner's registered optical business.
Reference:
Ext.A3
Document Type: Certification
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Certification confirming the validity of the GST registration.
Reference:
Ext.A3(a)
Document Type: Legal Notice
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
A subsequent notice by the petitioner demanding possession for business purposes.
Reference:
Ext.A4
Document Type: Reply Notice
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
The reply notice issued by the respondent denying the petitioner's claims.
Reference:
Ext.A5
Document Type: Commission Report
Submitted By: Court
Relevance:
Report from the advocate commissioner confirming facts related to the premises.
Reference:
Ext.C1

Quick Facts

Location
Ernakulam
Case Filed
Wed, 03/10/2021 - 12:00
Outcome Confidence
100%

Involved Entities

Similar Cases