Skip to main content
Niyamam AI Niyamam AI

Main navigation

  • Home
  • Lawyer Login
  • Lawyer Registration
  • About us
  • Contact
RC(OP).No.41/2023

Case between P.J.Alexander et al vs Biju Varghese regarding eviction

Court
COURT OF THE RENT CONTROLLER, KOLLAM
Judge
Smt. Ragi.S.
Order Date
2025-03-28
Duration
approximately-5 years 11 months
Case Closed
Fri, 03/28/2025 - 12:00

Judgement document from eCourt website

Judgment Document
Save Case Find Similar Cases

Case Summary

The petitioners, P.J.Alexander and Jaisy Alexander, are seeking eviction of the respondent, Biju Varghese, from a shoproom located in Kollam. The case revolves around alleged non-payment of rent and the petitioners' need for the premises to conduct their business.

Judgment Outcome

Plaintiff Won
Interim Order
The court ordered eviction of the respondent from the scheduled shoproom, citing non-payment of rent and the petitioners' bona fide need for the premises. The respondent can avoid eviction by depositing the arrears of rent within 30 days.
Judgment Favored
Plaintiff
Relief Granted
Eviction of the respondent from the scheduled shop room
Case Type
Rent Control Petition
Final Judgment
No
The court ordered eviction of the respondent from the scheduled shoproom, citing non-payment of rent and the petitioners' bona fide need for the premises. The respondent can avoid eviction by depositing the arrears of rent within 30 days.
Why Plaintiff Won:
The petitioners provided sufficient evidence of non-payment of rent and a bona fide need for the premises.
Losing Side's Weaknesses:
Not available
Supporting Evidence
It is well settled in law that it is not for the tenant to dictate to the landlord how to satisfy his needs. The bonafide need of the petitioners are evident from the Ext.C1 Series report of the commissioner.

Judgment Evidence:

The respondent is directed to put the petitioners in possession of the scheduled shop room u/s.11(2) (b) of the Act. The respondent is directed to put the petitioners in possession of the scheduled shop room within 30 days from today for the bona fide need of the petitioners u/s. 11(3) of the Act.

Parties Involved

Parties

Party Role
Plaintiff
Party Name
P.J.Alexander
Party Age
60
Relation
S/o
Party Role
Plaintiff
Party Name
Jaisy Alexander
Party Age
54
Relation
W/o
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
Biju Varghese
Party Age
55
Relation
S/o
Plaintiffs Documents
Demand Notice dated 17-10-2023, Sale deed Nos. 2331/2022 and 3658/2006.
Defendants Documents

Advocates

Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
John George
Appearance Type
Main Counsel
Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
Jasmine.M.
Appearance Type
Assisting Counsel
Party Role
Defendant
Advocate Name
Sumith Mohan
Appearance Type
Main Counsel

Reliefs

Relief Type: Eviction
Outcome: Granted
Description:
The petitioners were granted eviction from the scheduled shop room.
Evidence:
The petitioners are entitled to get an order of eviction u/s. 11(2)(b) of the Act.
Relief Type: Eviction
Outcome: Granted
Description:
Eviction granted for the bona fide need of the petitioners.
Evidence:
Hence, the petitioners are entitled to obtain an order under Sec. 11(3) of the Act.
Relief Type: Eviction
Outcome: Granted
Description:
Eviction based on respondent's possession of sufficient alternate business premises.
Evidence:
I have no hesitation in holding that the petitioners are entitled to get an order of eviction u/s. 11(4)(iii) of the Act.

Documents & Evidence

Document Type: Demand Notice
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
The court referred to this document to establish that the respondent has defaulted in the payment of rent from April 2022 onwards.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type: Order
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Cited as a previous order related to a similar case seeking eviction of the respondent from the scheduled shop rooms.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type: Sale deed
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Used to prove ownership of the property by the petitioners.
Reference:
Ext.A4
Document Type: Notice
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Related to the operation of a new bakery establishment which supports the petitioners' claim.
Reference:
Ext.A6
Document Type: Petition
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
Used as reference to prior proceedings involving the respondent.
Reference:
Ext.B1
Document Type: Notice
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
Constitutes part of the evidence submitted by the respondent.
Reference:
Ext.B2
Document Type: Commission Report
Submitted By: Court
Relevance:
Provided evidence of the necessity of eviction based on the respondent's business operations and their impact on the scheduled shop room.
Reference:
Ext.C1 series

Case Classification

Case Type
Rent Control Petition
Category
Eviction and Rent Control
District
Kollam
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court Kollam
Common Reasons
Default in payment of rent
Case Code
Case between P.J.Alexander et al vs Biju Varghese regarding eviction
Case Code Year
Case between P.J.Alexander et al vs Biju Varghese regarding eviction

Quick Facts

Location
Kollam
District
Kollam
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court Kollam
Case Filed
Tue, 05/14/2019 - 12:00
Case Closed
Fri, 03/28/2025 - 12:00
From
Sat, 03/01/2025 - 12:00
To
Wed, 04/30/2025 - 12:00
Outcome Confidence
95%

Involved Entities

Private Individual

Similar Cases

Case between R.S. Sheeja vs M/s Travancore Foods India(P) Ltd et al regarding eviction.
THE COURT OF THE RENT CONTROLLER
Rent Control Petition Defendant Won
Case between Muhammed Faizal.P.T et al vs Sakeer Husain regarding rent control
Munsiff Magistrate Court
Rent Control Petition Dismissed
Case between Beeran Haji vs Ali regarding rent control petition
Rent Controller of Tirur
Rent Control Petition Plaintiff Won
Case between Kunhimohammed Haji vs Vanaja Valliyil regarding Rent Control
Court of the Rent Controller of Tirur
Rent Control Petition Plaintiff Won
Case between Kunhimohammed Haji vs Ajith Kumar.U. regarding rent dispute
Rent Controller of Tirur
Rent Control Petition Both (settled)