Case Summary
V.G.Divakaran filed a rent control petition against T.G.Mohanan for eviction due to failure to pay rent and bonafide need for the premises. The respondent denied the allegations, stating financial dependency and that he was not conducting business.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Plaintiff
Relief Granted
The respondent is hereby directed to put the petitioner in possession of the petition schedule building within 30 days from today.
Case Type
Rent Control
Final Judgment
No
The petition for eviction was allowed as the court found the landlord's need to be bonafide, directing the respondent to vacate the premises within 30 days.
Why Plaintiff Won:
The court found the petitioner's need for the building to be genuine and bonafide under Section 11(3) of the Act.
The court found the petitioner's need for the building to be genuine and bonafide under Section 11(3) of the Act.
Losing Side's Weaknesses:
The court found the petitioner's need for the building to be genuine and bonafide under Section 11(3) of the Act.
The court found the petitioner's need for the building to be genuine and bonafide under Section 11(3) of the Act.
Supporting Evidence
Therefore, the bonafide need put forth by the petitioner remained unshaken even in cross-examination of PW1 and PW2.
Judgment Evidence:
In the result, the petition is allowed in part under Section 11(3) of the Act as follows; i. The respondent is hereby directed to put the petitioner in possession of the petition schedule building within 30 days from today.
Parties Involved
Parties
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- V.G.Divakaran
- Party Age
- 73
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- T.G.Mohanan
- Party Age
- 60
- Relation
- S/o
Plaintiffs Documents
Copy of Lawyer's notice dated 21.10.2021, Copy of reply notice dated 09.11.2021, Copy of Lawyer's notice dated 30.11.2021, Copy of reply notice dated 15.12.2021.
Defendants Documents
Advocates
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- T.K. AjithKumar
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Manasy T.
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Aswani Jyothy A.S.
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- P.T. Jose
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
Reliefs
Relief Type:
Eviction
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
The petitioner is granted eviction under Section 11(3) of the Act.
Evidence:
The petition is allowed in part under Section 11(3) of the Act as follows; The respondent is hereby directed to put the petitioner in possession of the petition schedule building within 30 days from today.
Relief Type:
Costs
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
The petitioner is entitled to get the costs of the proceedings from the respondent.
Evidence:
Hence, the petitioner is entitled to get the costs.
Documents & Evidence
Document Type:
Lawyer's Notice
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
The document includes a lawyer's notice issued to the respondent regarding the arrears of rent.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type:
Reply Notice
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
This is the reply notice from the respondent to the lawyer's notice issued by the petitioner.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type:
Lawyer's Notice
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
The document consists of another lawyer's notice issued to the respondent about the claim for arrears and bonafide need.
Reference:
Ext.A3
Document Type:
Reply Notice
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
This is a reply notice from the respondent in response to the petitioner's second notice.
Reference:
Ext.A4
Case Classification
Case Type
Rent Control
Category
Eviction and Rent Control
District
Ernakulam
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court, Ernakulam
Common Reasons
Case Code
Case between V.G.Divakaran vs T.G.Mohanan regarding Rent Control
Case Code Year
Case between V.G.Divakaran vs T.G.Mohanan regarding Rent Control