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

Main navigation

  • Home
  • Lawyer Login
  • Lawyer Registration
R.C.P. No.92/2020

Case between Parvathy Antharajanam et al vs Annie Varghese et al regarding eviction

Court
THE COURT OF THE THIRD ADDL. MUNSIFF & RENT CONTROLLER
Judge
SRI. REGHUNATH N.S.
Order Date
2024-01-31
Duration

Judgement document from eCourt website

Open judgment PDF (eCourt)
Find Similar Cases

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

Plaintiff Won
Interim Order
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.
Judgment Favored
Plaintiff
Relief Granted
Respondents directed to vacate the schedule building and hand possession to the petitioners.
Case Type
Eviction
Final Judgment
No
Why Plaintiff Won:
The petitioners established their bonafide need for the schedule building based on presented evidence.

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

Plaintiffs

Parvathy Antharajanam (74 years) Sreesylam­ Edathamaramana, 37/1953, Kaloor­Kadavanthra Road, Kaloor P.O., Pin­ 682 017 E.S. Madhu (51 years) Sreesylam­ Edathamaramana, 37/1953, Kaloor­Kadavanthra Road, Kaloor P.O., Pin­ 682 017 E.S. Mahesh (49 years) Sreesylam­ Edathamaramana, 37/1953, Kaloor­Kadavanthra Road, Kaloor P.O., Pin­ 682017 E.A. Sreedharan Bhattathiripad (84 years) Rajasree­Edathamaramana, 63/477 Central School Road, Kadavanthra P.O., Pin­ 682 017 Nalini Antharjanam (72 years) Rajasree­Edathamaramana, 63/477, Central School Road, Kadavanthra P.O., Pin­ 682 020

Defendants

Annie Varghese (65 years) Thykatt Agencies, C.C. 55/1017, Ground floor, Edathamaramana Shopping Complex (E.M.S. Shopping Complex), Kadavanthara, Kochi­682 020 Vineesh Varghese (Age not specified years) Thykatt Agencies, C.C. 55/1017, Ground floor, Edathamaramana Shopping Complex (E.M.S. Shopping Complex), Kadavanthara, Kochi­682 020 Smila Varghese (Age not specified years) Thykatt Agencies, C.C. 55/1017, Ground floor, Edathamaramana Shopping Complex (E.M.S. Shopping Complex), Kadavanthara, Kochi­682 020 Mrithula Varghese (Age not specified years) Thykatt Agencies, C.C. 55/1017, Ground floor, Edathamaramana Shopping Complex (E.M.S. Shopping Complex), Kadavanthara, Kochi­682 020

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:

Quick Facts

Location
ERNAKULAM
Case Filed
Wed, 01/01/2020 - 12:00
Outcome Confidence
90%

Involved Entities

Private Individual

Similar Cases