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

Main navigation

  • Home
  • Lawyer Login
  • Lawyer Registration
RENT CONTROL PETITION NO. 25 OF 2016

Case between Muhammedkutty vs Komu regarding eviction of tenant

Court
RENT CONTROL COURT
Judge
Sri. Jankish Narayanan
Order Date
2019-08-27
Duration

Judgement document from eCourt website

Open judgment PDF (eCourt)
Find Similar Cases

Case Summary

Muhammedkutty filed a petition against Komu seeking eviction from a shop room that he rented. The petitioner claimed he needed the property for his son to start a business, while the respondent contended he had a valid lease for his barber shop.

Judgment Outcome

Plaintiff Won
Interim Order
The court allowed the eviction petition under S. 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, directing the respondent to vacate the premises within three months. The petition was partially dismissed for other grounds.
Judgment Favored
Plaintiff
Relief Granted
The respondent is directed to give vacant possession of the petition schedule property to the petitioner within three months from today.
Case Type
Rent Control Petition
Final Judgment
No
Why Plaintiff Won:
The petitioner proved bona fide need for the property for his son to start a business.

Judgment Evidence:

In the result, the petition is allowed under S. 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act as follows: The respondent is directed to give vacant possession of the petition schedule property to the petitioner within three months from today.

Parties Involved

Plaintiffs

Muhammedkutty (56 years) Chelakkottil House, Edayur amsom Athippatta desom, Tirur Taluk. P.O.Edayur. PIN – 676 552. Sahad (24 years) Chelakkottil House, Edayur amsom Athippatta desom, Tirur Taluk. P.O.Edayur. PIN – 676 552.

Defendants

Komu (Age not specified years) 1st Floor, Room No.K.P.1/599 E, Chelakkodu Building, Railway Station Road, Kuttippuram amsom desom, Tirur Taluk. P.O.Kuttippuram.

Reliefs

Relief Type: Eviction
Outcome: Granted
Description:
Evicts the respondent from the petition schedule shop room.
Evidence:
I hold a view that the petitioner has proved that he is in bona fide need of the petition schedule shop room for the purpose of his dependant son, PW2 to start a business.
Relief Type: Other
Outcome: Granted
Description:
Petitioner is entitled to realise costs of the petition from the respondent.
Evidence:
I find no reason to deviate from the normal rule. So the petitioner is entitled to realise the cost of the proceedings from respondents.

Documents & Evidence

Document Type: Copy of Jenm Assignment Deed
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Relevant to establish ownership of the petition schedule shop room.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type: Copy of Lawyer Notice
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Demands the respondent to surrender vacant possession of the shop room.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type: Reply Notice
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Responds to the allegations made by the respondent.
Reference:
Ext.A3
Document Type: Commission Report
Submitted By: Court
Relevance:
Details the condition of the shop room inspected by the Advocate Commissioner.
Reference:
Ext.C1
Document Type: Commission Plan
Submitted By: Court
Relevance:
Provides a layout of the shop room in relation to the eviction petition.
Reference:
Ext.C2
Document Type: Daily Deposit Pass Book
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
Demonstrates payment of rent by the respondent, countering claims of arrears.
Reference:
Ext.B1

Quick Facts

Location
Tirur
Case Filed
Mon, 01/18/2016 - 12:00
Outcome Confidence
85%

Involved Entities

Similar Cases