Case Summary
The petitioners, P.U.Sidhique and others, are seeking compliance against the respondent, Zakariya, in a rent control matter. The court found that the respondent failed to comply with previous orders regarding rent arrears.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Plaintiff
Relief Granted
Order to put the petitioner in vacant possession of the building.
Case Type
Rent Control Petition
Final Judgment
No
The court has issued an order directing the respondent to put the petitioner in vacant possession due to non-compliance with prior orders related to rent arrears.
Why Plaintiff Won:
The respondent failed to comply with the previous order and did not show sufficient cause for the non-compliance.
The respondent failed to comply with the previous order and did not show sufficient cause for the non-compliance.
Losing Side's Weaknesses:
The respondent failed to comply with the previous order and did not show sufficient cause for the non-compliance.
The respondent failed to comply with the previous order and did not show sufficient cause for the non-compliance.
Supporting Evidence
The respondent having failed to comply with the order in IA 8/2024 an having failed to show sufficient cause for not depositing rent arrears.
Judgment Evidence:
Hence an order is passed under Section 12(3) of the act stopping all the further proceedings in the rent control petition and directing the respondent to put the petitioner in vacant possession of the building forthwith.
Parties Involved
Parties
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- P.U.Sidhique
- Party Age
- 76
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- P.H.Subaidha
- Party Age
- 69
- Relation
- W/o
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Nihas
- Party Age
- 35
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Zakariya
- Party Age
- 54
- Relation
- S/o
Plaintiffs Documents
Defendants Documents
Advocates
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- K.V. Jayachandran
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Raju V. Mathew
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- K.R. Vinod
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- M.S. Letha
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Aswin Venugopal
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- John Paul Manjaly
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Kurian Maxie
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
Reliefs
Relief Type:
Possession
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
The respondent is directed to put the petitioner in vacant possession of the building.
Evidence:
Hence an order is passed under Section 12(3) of the act stopping all the further proceedings in the rent control petition and directing the respondent to put the petitioner in vacant possession of the building forthwith.
Documents & Evidence
Case Classification
Case Type
Rent Control Petition
Category
Eviction and Rent Control
District
Ernakulam
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court, Ernakulam
Common Reasons
Case Code
Case between P.U.Sidhique et al vs Zakariya regarding compliance of rent control orders.
Case Code Year
Case between P.U.Sidhique et al vs Zakariya regarding compliance of rent control orders.