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

Main navigation

  • Home
  • Lawyer Login
  • Lawyer Registration
RENT CONTROL PETITION NO. 59 OF 2015

Case between Tharammal Suseela vs M.K. Hussain et al regarding eviction of premises

Court
COURT OF THE RENT CONTROLLER OF TIRUR
Judge
Smt. VINCY.T.V.
Order Date
2017-02-27
Duration

Judgement document from eCourt website

Open judgment PDF (eCourt)
Find Similar Cases

Case Summary

Tharammal Suseela filed a petition against M.K. Hussain and Thabseena for eviction from a rented property. The petitioner asserts her daughter needs the property for a proposed business, while the respondents dispute the claim of eviction.

Judgment Outcome

Plaintiff Won
Interim Order
The court allowed the petition for eviction, ruling that the petitioner had a bona fide need for the property for her daughter. The respondents were directed to vacate the premises.
Judgment Favored
Plaintiff
Relief Granted
The respondents are directed to put the petitioner in vacant possession of the petition schedule building within two months.
Case Type
Rent Control Petition
Final Judgment
No
Why Plaintiff Won:
The petitioner established a bona fide need for the property.

Judgment Evidence:

In the result, This petition is allowed under section 11(3) and 11(4)(i) of the Kerala Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act 1965 as follows: a) The respondents are directed to put the petitioner in vacant possession of the petition schedule building within two months from today.

Parties Involved

Plaintiffs

Tharammal Suseela (52 years years) Housing Board Colony, 19th mail, Palappuram, Ottapalam Taluk, Palakkad district

Defendants

M.K. Hussain (Age not specified years) Mavumkunnath House, Ezhoor, Tirur, Pin: 676 101 Thabseena (Age not specified years) Said Ayurveda Medical Shop, Near Over Bridge, Tirur

Reliefs

Relief Type: Eviction
Outcome: Granted
Description:
The petitioner requested eviction of the respondents from the petition schedule property due to bonafide need.
Evidence:
On the basis of the foregoing discussions, the petitioner is entitled for an order u/s 11(3) and 11(4)(i) of the Kerala Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act 1965.

Documents & Evidence

Document Type: Rent Agreement
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
The court referred to the rent agreement to establish the terms of the lease and the violation of subletting by the respondent.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type: Registered Lawyer Notice
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
This notice was examined to show that the petitioner attempted to notify the respondent to vacate the premises.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type: Registered return notice
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
The court used this document to demonstrate the respondent's absence and lack of response to the petitioner's notice.
Reference:
Ext.A3
Document Type: Copy of Degree of Bachelor of Technology
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document was referenced to establish the educational qualifications of the petitioner's daughter and her intentions for using the property.
Reference:
Ext.A4

Quick Facts

Location
Tirur
Case Filed
Outcome Confidence
95%

Involved Entities

Similar Cases