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

Main navigation

  • Home
  • Lawyer Login
  • Lawyer Registration
R.C.P. No.186/2020

Case between N. Parevathy Manoranjini vs Tino Thomas regarding eviction based on non-payment of rent.

Court
THE COURT OF THE THIRD ADDL. MUNSIFF & RENT CONTROLLER, ERNAKULAM
Judge
Sri. Reghunath N.S.
Order Date
2024-01-31
Duration
approximately-3 years 6 months

Judgement document from eCourt website

Open judgment PDF (eCourt)
Find Similar Cases

Case Summary

N. Parevathy Manoranjini, the petitioner, seeks to evict Tino Thomas, the counter petitioner, for failing to pay rent for a property since August 2019. The court found that the respondent has not been occupying the property and has accrued substantial rent arrears.

Judgment Outcome

Plaintiff Won
Interim Order
The court allowed the petition for eviction against Tino Thomas due to non-payment of rent and lack of occupancy in the property.
Judgment Favored
Plaintiff
Relief Granted
Eviction of the respondent from the petition schedule building.
Case Type
Rent Control Petition
Final Judgment
No
Why Plaintiff Won:
The petitioner proved that the respondent defaulted in rent payment and ceased occupancy of the premises.

Judgment Evidence:

In the result, the petition is allowed with costs as follows: The respondent/tenant is directed to put the landlord/petitioner in possession of the petition schedule building under Section 11(2)(b), 11(4)(ii), and 11(4)(v) of the Act within 30 days from today.

Parties Involved

Plaintiffs

N. Parevathy Manoranjini (74 years) Devdeep, 31/1003 C, Kunhan Bava Road, Kochi­682019, Ernakulam Village, Kanayannur Taluk, Ernakulam district.

Defendants

Tino Thomas (36 years) Chethipazha House, Perumpanachi P.O., Pin­686536, Changanassery, Kottayam District.

Reliefs

Relief Type: Eviction
Outcome: Granted
Description:
The petitioner sought an order of eviction against the respondent who has ceased to occupy the petition schedule building.
Evidence:
In these circumstances, the petitioner has proved his case and therefore, he is entitled to get order of eviction against the respondent.

Documents & Evidence

Document Type: Lease Agreement
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
The lease agreement evidences the tenancy and terms agreed upon between the petitioner and the respondent for the petition schedule building.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type: Lawyer Notice
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
The notice informs the respondent about the non-payment of rent and demands payment.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type: Acknowledgment card
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
This card shows confirmation of receipt of the lawyer notice by the respondent's mother.
Reference:
Ext.A3
Document Type: Lawyer Notice
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
A subsequent lawyer notice sent to the respondent for the payment of arrears of rent.
Reference:
Ext.A4
Document Type: Original Returned Envelope
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
This envelope signifies that the earlier lawyer notice sent was unserved.
Reference:
Ext.A5
Document Type: Power of Attorney
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
The power of attorney document executed in favor of the witness for representing the petitioner.
Reference:
Ext.A6
Document Type: Commission Report
Submitted By: Court
Relevance:
The report substantiates the petitioner's claim by detailing the condition and status of the petition schedule building.
Reference:
Ext.C1

Quick Facts

Location
Ernakulam
Case Filed
Outcome Confidence
90%

Involved Entities

Private Individual

Similar Cases