R.C.P. No. 118/2023

Case between Sri. A.A. Muhammed Hasheer vs Sri. Jitendra M. Shah regarding eviction

Court

THE COURT OF THE THIRD ADDL. MUNSIFF & RENT CONTROLLER, ERNAKULAM

Judge

SRI. REGHUNATH N.S.

Order Date

2024-02-12

Duration

Case Closed

Judgement document from eCourt website

Save Case Find Similar Cases

Case Summary

The petitioners, Sri. A.A. Muhammed Hasheer and Sri. A.A. Harish, filed a petition for eviction under the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act against the respondents, Sri. Jitendra M. Shah and M/s. R.J. Marketing. The petition was dismissed as not pressed by the petitioner's counsel.

Judgment Outcome

Defendant Won

Interim Order

The court dismissed the eviction petition as the petitioner's counsel was not pressing the petition. No costs were awarded.

Judgment Favored

Defendant

Relief Granted

Case Type

Rent Control Petition

Final Judgment

The court dismissed the eviction petition as the petitioner's counsel was not pressing the petition. No costs were awarded.

Key Reasoning:
The petition was dismissed as not pressed.

Why Defendant Won:
The petition was dismissed as not pressed.

Supporting Evidence

The counsel for the petitioner submitted that, he is not pressing the petition.

Judgment Evidence:

In the light of above endorsement, petition is dismissed as not pressed.

Parties Involved

Parties

Party Role: Plaintiff
Party Name: Sri. A.A. Muhammed Hasheer
Party Age: 70
Relation: S/o

Party Role: Plaintiff
Party Name: Sri. A.A. Harish
Party Age: 61
Relation: S/o

Party Role: Defendant
Party Name: Sri. Jitendra M. Shah
Party Age: 70
Relation: S/o

Party Role: Defendant
Party Name: M/s. R.J. Marketing

Plaintiffs Documents

Defendants Documents

Advocates

Party Role: Plaintiff
Advocate Name: P.U. Ziyad
Appearance Type: Main Counsel

Party Role: Plaintiff
Advocate Name: Susan Ziyad
Appearance Type: Main Counsel

Party Role: Plaintiff
Advocate Name: Natalia Ziyad
Appearance Type: Main Counsel

Reliefs

Relief Type: Eviction

Outcome: Dismissed

Description:

Petition for eviction was filed but was not pressed by the counsel.

Evidence: