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

Main navigation

  • Home
  • Lawyer Login
  • Lawyer Registration
R.C.P. No. 145/2023

Case between T.K. Mathew @ Kunjukunju Mathew vs K.A. Bharathan regarding eviction of tenant

Court
THE COURT OF THE THIRD ADDL. MUNSIFF & RENT CONTROLLER, ERNAKULAM
Judge
Smt. REEJA R. NAIR
Order Date
2025-10-21
Duration

Judgement document from eCourt website

Open judgment PDF (eCourt)
Find Similar Cases

Case Summary

T.K. Mathew filed a rent control petition against K.A. Bharathan for eviction of the latter from a shop he rented, citing a bonafide need to start a hardware business. The tenant contested the eviction, claiming that the landlord's need was not genuine.

Judgment Outcome

Plaintiff Won
Interim Order
The court allowed the eviction petition and directed the tenant to vacate the premises within 30 days. The petitioner was also granted the costs of the proceedings.
Judgment Favored
Plaintiff
Relief Granted
Eviction of the respondent from the petition schedule building
Case Type
Rent Control Petition
Final Judgment
No
Why Plaintiff Won:
The court found the landlord's need for the building genuine and bonafide.

Judgment Evidence:

In the result, the rent control petition is allowed under Section 11(3) of the Act. The respondent is hereby directed to put the landlord in possession of the petition schedule building within 30 days from the date of order.

Parties Involved

Plaintiffs

T.K. Mathew @ Kunjukunju Mathew (70 years years) Tharayil House, Pachalam P.O., Kochi 682 012

Defendants

K.A. Bharathan (Age not specified years) Ashtapadhi, Powathil Road, Ayyappankavu, Ernakulam North P.O., Pin: 682 018

Reliefs

Relief Type: Eviction
Outcome: Granted
Description:
The petitioner sought the eviction of the respondent from the premises.
Evidence:
The rent control petition is allowed under Section 11(3) of the Act.
Relief Type: Costs
Outcome: Granted
Description:
The petitioner is entitled to recover the cost of the proceedings from the respondent.
Evidence:
The petitioner is entitled to recover the cost of the proceedings from the respondent.

Documents & Evidence

Document Type: Demand Notice
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Sent by the petitioner's lawyer requesting the respondent to vacate the premises by a specified date.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type: Reply Notice
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Received from the respondent in response to the demand notice, which contained false claims.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type: Commission Report
Submitted By: Court
Relevance:
Provided evidence regarding the condition and ownership of properties involved in the case.
Reference:
Ext.C1
Document Type: Photographs
Submitted By: Court
Relevance:
Visual evidence of properties related to the case.
Reference:
Ext.C1(a)
Document Type: Compact Disk
Submitted By: Court
Relevance:
Contains the photographs produced along with Ext.C1.
Reference:
Ext.C1(b)
Document Type: Certification
Submitted By: Court
Relevance:
Certification of the photographs produced.
Reference:
Ext.C1(c)

Quick Facts

Location
Ernakulam
Case Filed
Tue, 11/01/2022 - 12:00
Outcome Confidence
95%

Involved Entities

Similar Cases