Case Summary
The petitioners, the legal heirs of late Sankara Narayanan Bhattathirippad, filed for eviction against the respondent Muraleedranath, who is conducting a business in a commercial complex. The petitioners seek eviction to reconstruct the building to better suit the commercial needs of the locality.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Plaintiff
Relief Granted
Eviction of the respondent from the schedule building within 30 days
Case Type
Eviction Petition
Final Judgment
No
The court ordered the eviction of the respondent from the schedule building, allowing the petition for reconstruction of the commercial complex due to its inadequacy for business.
Why Plaintiff Won:
The petitioners demonstrated a bonafide need for reconstruction of the building to align with the commercial requirements of the area.
The petitioners demonstrated a bonafide need for reconstruction of the building to align with the commercial requirements of the area.
Losing Side's Weaknesses:
The petitioners demonstrated a bonafide need for reconstruction of the building to align with the commercial requirements of the area.
The petitioners demonstrated a bonafide need for reconstruction of the building to align with the commercial requirements of the area.
Supporting Evidence
The petitioners proved their bonafide need of starting a supermarket after reconstructing the building complex for which it is necessary to issue an order of eviction against the respondent.
Judgment Evidence:
In the result, the petition is allowed with costs as follows. The respondent/tenant is directed to put the landlord/petitioners in possession of the schedule building under Section 11(3) of the Act within 30 days from today.
Parties Involved
Parties
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Parvathy Antharajanam
- Party Age
- 74
- Relation
- W/o
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- E.S. Madhu
- Party Age
- 51
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- E.S. Mahesh
- Party Age
- 49
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- E.A. Sreedharan Bhattathiripad
- Party Age
- 84
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Nalini Antharjanam
- Party Age
- 72
- Relation
- W/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Muraleedranath
- Party Age
- 58
- Relation
- S/o
Plaintiffs Documents
Office Copy of the lawyer notice dated 18.02.2019, Reply Notice dated 02.03.2019
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
- A. Rajagopalan
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Balagopalan A.
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Prabhu Muralikrishnan
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Amal A.R.
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
Reliefs
Relief Type:
Eviction
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
The petitioners sought eviction of the respondent from the schedule building.
Evidence:
In these circumstances, it is found that upon considering the unchallenged oral testimony of PW1, the petitioners have proved their bonafide need of starting a supermarket after reconstructing the building complex for which it is necessary to issue an order of eviction against the respondent.
Relief Type:
Possession
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
The respondent/tenant is directed to put the landlord/petitioners in possession of the schedule building.
Evidence:
The respondent/tenant is directed to put the landlord/petitioners in possession of the schedule building under Section 11(3) of the Act within 30 days from today.
Relief Type:
Possession
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
The respondent/tenant is directed to put the landlord/petitioners in possession of the schedule building.
Evidence:
The respondent/tenant is directed to put the landlord/petitioners in possession of the schedule building under Section 11(4)(iv) of the Act within 30 days from today.
Documents & Evidence
Document Type:
Lawyer Notice
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Sent to the respondent seeking eviction of the schedule building.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type:
Reply Notice
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Response from the respondent taking up various untenable contentions.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Case Classification
Case Type
Eviction Petition
Category
Eviction and Rent Control
District
Ernakulam
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court, Ernakulam
Common Reasons
Eviction
Case Code
Case between Parvathy Antharajanam et al vs Muraleedranath regarding eviction under the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965
Case Code Year
Case between Parvathy Antharajanam et al vs Muraleedranath regarding eviction under the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965