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

Main navigation

  • Home
  • Lawyer Login
  • Lawyer Registration
R.C.P. No. 89/2024

Case between Shajan Thomas vs Kunjumol Pradeep Jagtap regarding eviction of tenant

Court
COURT OF THE THIRD ADDL. MUNSIFF & RENT CONTROLLER
Judge
SMT. REEJA R. NAIR
Order Date
2025-07-17
Duration
approximately-2 years 5 months

Judgement document from eCourt website

Open judgment PDF (eCourt)
Find Similar Cases

Case Summary

Shajan Thomas filed a petition against Kunjumol Pradeep Jagtap for eviction due to breach of a rental agreement. The petitioner claims the respondent has not vacated the property and owes rent.

Judgment Outcome

Plaintiff Won
Interim Order
The court allowed the petition in part, ordering the respondent to vacate the property within 30 days and granted the petitioner the costs of the petition.
Judgment Favored
Plaintiff
Relief Granted
Order for the respondent to vacate the property within 30 days and costs granted to the petitioner.
Case Type
Rent Control Petition
Final Judgment
No
Why Plaintiff Won:
The petitioner provided sufficient evidence of rent arrears and breach of agreement by the respondent.

Judgment Evidence:

The petition is allowed in part u/s 11(2)(b) and 11(3) of the Act as follows: The respondent/tenant is directed to put the landlord/petitioner in possession of the petition schedule building within 30 days from today.

Parties Involved

Plaintiffs

Shajan Thomas (60 years) Madathil House, Nadama Desam, Tripunithura P.O, PIN-682301 Linolf Joseph (45 years) Kottezhath House, Chakkalamuttu Road, North Fort Gate, Tripunithura P.O

Defendants

Kunjumol Pradeep Jagtap (55 years) Petta, BVRA 79, CC 29/2458C, Krishnaveettil, Poonithura Village, Poonithura P.O

Reliefs

Relief Type: Possession
Outcome: Granted
Description:
The respondent is directed to put the landlord in possession of the petition schedule building.
Evidence:
The respondent/tenant is directed to put the landlord/petitioner in possession of the petition schedule building within 30 days from today.
Relief Type: Costs
Outcome: Granted
Description:
The petitioner is entitled to get the costs of the petition from the respondent.
Evidence:
The petitioner is entitled to get the costs of the petition from the respondent.
Relief Type: Mandatory Injunction
Outcome: Rejected
Description:
Relief sought under section 11(4)(v) of the Act is rejected due to lack of evidence.
Evidence:
But no evidence is adduced so as to constitute the ingredients required under section 11(4)(v) of the Act, hence the relief sought under the said section is hereby rejected.

Documents & Evidence

Document Type: Power of Attorney
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Submitted as the copy of Power of Attorney to support the petitioner's claim.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type: Rental Agreement
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Original rental agreement dated 25.02.2022 to establish tenancy terms.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type: Lawyer's Notice
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Lawyer's notice dated 07.07.2023 indicating unserved demands to the respondent.
Reference:
Ext.A3
Document Type: Postal Envelop with Acknowledgment Card
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Original unserved postal envelop with acknowledgment card to establish communication attempts.
Reference:
Ext.A4
Document Type: Lawyer's Notice
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Copy of lawyer's notice dated 14.02.2024.
Reference:
Ext.A5
Document Type: Postal Envelop with Acknowledgment Card
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Original unserved postal envelop with acknowledgment card indicating further communication attempts.
Reference:
Ext.A6

Quick Facts

Location
Ernakulam
Case Filed
Fri, 02/25/2022 - 12:00
Outcome Confidence
90%

Involved Entities

Similar Cases