Case Summary
The petitioners are the legal heirs of late Sankara Narayanan Bhattathirippad seeking eviction of the respondents, who are the legal heirs of late T.P. Varghese, from a commercial building. The petitioners claim bonafide need for starting a supermarket in the site currently occupied by the respondents.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Plaintiff
Relief Granted
Respondents directed to vacate the schedule building and hand possession to the petitioners.
Case Type
Eviction
Final Judgment
No
The court allowed the eviction petition filed by the petitioners based on their bonafide need for the property to start a supermarket, concluding that the respondents, who failed to present any objection, were not dependent on the income from the building.
Why Plaintiff Won:
The petitioners established their bonafide need for the schedule building based on presented evidence.
The petitioners established their bonafide need for the schedule building based on presented evidence.
Losing Side's Weaknesses:
The petitioners established their bonafide need for the schedule building based on presented evidence.
The petitioners established their bonafide need for the schedule building based on presented evidence.
Supporting Evidence
Having considered the unchallenged oral testimony of PW1, the petitioners have proved their bonafide need for starting a supermarket after reconstructing the shopping complex.
Judgment Evidence:
The petition is allowed with costs. The respondents are directed to put the landlord/petitioners in possession of the schedule building under Section 11(3) of the Act.
Parties Involved
Parties
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Parvathy Antharajanam
- Party Age
- 74
- Relation
- W/o. late E.A Sankaranarayanan Bhattathiripad
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- E.S. Madhu
- Party Age
- 51
- Relation
- S/o. late E.A Sankaranarayanan Bhattathiripad
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- E.S. Mahesh
- Party Age
- 49
- Relation
- S/o. late E.A Sankaranarayanan Bhattathiripad
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- E.A. Sreedharan Bhattathiripad
- Party Age
- 84
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Nalini Antharjanam
- Party Age
- 72
- Relation
- W/o. E.A. Sreedharan Bhattathiripad
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Annie Varghese
- Party Age
- 65
- Relation
- W/o. Late T.P. Varghese
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Vineesh Varghese
- Relation
- S/o. T.P. Varghese
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Smila Varghese
- Relation
- D/o. T.P. Varghese
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Mrithula Varghese
- Relation
- D/o. T.P. Varghese
Plaintiffs Documents
Office Copy of the lawyer notice dated 19.02.2019, Reply Notice dated 13.03.2019.
Defendants Documents
Advocates
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Basil Mathew
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Ninan John
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Sanjana Sara Varghese
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Ravikrishnan E.M.
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Jeejan T.
- Appearance Type
- Exparte
Reliefs
Relief Type:
Eviction
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
The petitioners sought eviction of the respondents from the schedule building.
Evidence:
In these circumstances, it is found that considering the unchallenged oral testimony of PW1, the petitioners have proved their case and therefore, they are entitled to get an order eviction against the respondents.
Relief Type:
Possession
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
The petitioners are directed to be put in possession of the schedule building.
Evidence:
The respondents are directed to put the landlord/petitioners in possession of the schedule building under Section 11(3) of the Act.
Documents & Evidence
Document Type:
Lawyer Notice
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
The plaintiffs sent a lawyer notice seeking vacant possession of the schedule building.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type:
Reply Notice
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
The defendants sent a reply notice stating various untenable contentions.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type:
Oral Evidence
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
The oral testimony by petitioner no. 6, Rajesh E.S. was crucial in proving the plaintiffs' need for eviction.
Reference:
Case Classification
Case Type
Eviction
Category
Eviction and Rent Control
District
Ernakulam
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court, Ernakulam
Common Reasons
Need for own use
Case Code
Case between Parvathy Antharajanam et al vs Annie Varghese et al regarding eviction
Case Code Year
Case between Parvathy Antharajanam et al vs Annie Varghese et al regarding eviction