Case Summary
The petitioners, P.U.Sidhique and P.H.Subaidha, filed a rent control petition against the respondent, Zakariya, due to non-compliance with a previous order regarding rent arrears. The court has determined that the respondent failed to show sufficient cause for not complying with the order.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Plaintiff
Relief Granted
Respondent directed to put the petitioner in vacant possession of the building forthwith.
Case Type
Rent Control Petition
Final Judgment
No
The court found that the respondent did not comply with the prior order regarding rent arrears. Consequently, an order was issued to stop the proceedings and put the petitioner in possession of the building.
Why Plaintiff Won:
The respondent failed to comply with the order and did not show sufficient cause for non-compliance.
The respondent failed to comply with the order and did not show sufficient cause for non-compliance.
Losing Side's Weaknesses:
The respondent failed to comply with the order and did not show sufficient cause for non-compliance.
The respondent failed to comply with the order and did not show sufficient cause for non-compliance.
Supporting Evidence
the respondent laving failed to comply with the order in IA 5/2024 and having failed to show sufficient cause for not depositing rent arrears is liable to suffer consequence under Section 12(3) of the Act.
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
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Zakariya
- Party Age
- 54
- Relation
- S/O
Plaintiffs Documents
None mentioned
Defendants Documents
None mentioned
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
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Kurian Maxie
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
Reliefs
Relief Type:
Possession
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
Directing the respondent to put the petitioner in vacant possession of the building forthwith.
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 vs Zakariya regarding Rent Control
Case Code Year
Case between P.U.Sidhique vs Zakariya regarding Rent Control