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

Main navigation

  • Home
  • Lawyer Login
  • Lawyer Registration
R.C.P. No. 78/2023

Case between Smruti Devi Sivadas vs Remya P., Arjunan regarding rent control petition

Court
THE COURT OF THE THIRD ADDL. MUNSIFF & RENT CONTROLLER
Judge
SMT. REEJA R. NAIR
Order Date
2024-08-12
Duration
approximately-1 year 6 months

Judgement document from eCourt website

Open judgment PDF (eCourt)
Find Similar Cases

Case Summary

Smruti Devi Sivadas filed a petition against Remya P. and Arjunan for not vacating a residential building after the rental agreement expired. The court found that the petitioner had a bonafide need for the property and allowed the petition.

Judgment Outcome

Plaintiff Won
Interim Order
The petition was allowed as the respondent failed to vacate the property. The court determined that the petitioner had a genuine need for the rental property.
Judgment Favored
Plaintiff
Relief Granted
Respondent is directed to vacate the property within 30 days.
Case Type
Rent Control Petition
Final Judgment
No
Why Plaintiff Won:
The petitioner established her claim of bonafide need supported by the unrebutted testimony and evidence.

Judgment Evidence:

In the result, The petition is allowed u/S 11(3) of the Act with costs as follows: The respondent/tenant is directed to put the landlord/petitioner in vacant possession of the petition schedule building under Section 11(3) of the Act within 30 days from today.

Parties Involved

Plaintiffs

Smruti Devi Sivadas (42 years) B-1017, Statelite Town Ship, Kakkanad West, Padamugal, Ernakulam-682 030

Defendants

Remya P. (38 years) 25/447, Thrikkakara Muncipality (B-1039), Satellite Town Ship, Kakkanad West, Ernakulam-682 030 Arjunan (Age not specified years)

Reliefs

Relief Type: Possession
Outcome: Granted
Description:
The petitioner is entitled to possession of the petition schedule building.
Evidence:
The petition is allowed u/S 11(3) of the Act with costs.
Relief Type: Costs
Outcome: Granted
Description:
The petitioner is entitled to realize costs of the suit from the respondent.
Evidence:
The petitioner is entitled to realize costs of the suit from the respondent.

Documents & Evidence

Document Type: Lawyer's Notice
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document serves as a formal communication indicating the petitioner's intent to reclaim possession of the property.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type: A/d Card
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document provides evidence of the delivery attempt of the lawyer's notice to the respondent.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type: Oral Evidence
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
The oral testimony of PW1 supports the petitioner's claims regarding her need for the property.
Reference:

Quick Facts

Location
Ernakulam
Case Filed
Mon, 02/13/2023 - 12:00
Outcome Confidence
90%

Involved Entities

Similar Cases