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
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
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.
Why Plaintiff Won:
The petitioner established a bona fide need for the property.
The petitioner established a bona fide need for the property.
Losing Side's Weaknesses:
Not available
Not available
Supporting Evidence
The bonafide need of the petitioner is proved. Considering the materials on record, the petitioner is in bonafide need of the building for occupying her daughter.
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
Parties
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Tharammal Suseela
- Party Age
- 52
- Relation
- D/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- M.K. Hussain
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Thabseena
Plaintiffs Documents
Rent Agreement, Registered lawyer notice and postal receipt with acknowledgment card, Registered return notice
Defendants Documents
Advocates
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Sri.S. Hariharan
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Sri.Muhammed Ashraf
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
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
Case Classification
Case Type
Rent Control Petition
Category
Eviction and Rent Control
District
Malappuram
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court, Tirur / Rent Control Court
Common Reasons
Bonafide need
Case Code
Case between Tharammal Suseela vs M.K. Hussain et al regarding eviction of premises
Case Code Year
Case between Tharammal Suseela vs M.K. Hussain et al regarding eviction of premises