Case Summary
V.J Tomy and George Viju, former tenants, seek restoration of possession of rented premises from their landlord O.U Varghese, claiming he has not occupied the property despite obtaining possession. The landlord argues he commenced his bakery business after obtaining the necessary licenses.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Defendant
Relief Granted
Case Type
Rent Control Petition
Final Judgment
No
Key Reasoning:
The court found that the defendant had a reasonable cause for not occupying the premises due to pandemic restrictions and took appropriate steps to commence business.
The court found that the defendant had a reasonable cause for not occupying the premises due to pandemic restrictions and took appropriate steps to commence business.
Judgment Evidence:
In the result, the petition is dismissed with costs to the respondent.
Parties Involved
Plaintiffs
V.J Tomy (66 years)
Valiyaparambil House, St. Martin Road, Palarivattom, Ernakulam-682025
George Viju (54 years)
Valiyaparambil House, Kalabhavan Road, Ernakulam-682018
Defendants
O.U Varghese (52 years)
Olangattu Pinermunda, Ernakulam District-682316
Reliefs
Relief Type:
Possession
Outcome:
Refused
Description:
The petitioners sought restoration of possession of the premises.
Evidence:
The petition is dismissed with costs to the respondent.
Documents & Evidence
Document Type:
Certified copy of the common order
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document was submitted to show the background of the prior court orders related to the case.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type:
Printout of demand cum disconnection notices
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
These notices were used to demonstrate that the premises were not occupied by the respondent during the specified period.
Reference:
Ext.A3 series
Document Type:
Certified copy of the judgment
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
This judgment was presented to support the petitioner's claim.
Reference:
Ext.A4
Document Type:
Certified copy of the judgment
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
This document was used to establish the previous court ruling in favor of the respondent.
Reference:
Ext.B1
Document Type:
Certified copy of the license fee receipt
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
This document was provided to show the issuance of a license necessary for operating the bakery.
Reference:
Ext.B2
Document Type:
Certified copy of the license fee receipt
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
This document was part of evidence to demonstrate compliance with licensing requirements.
Reference:
Ext.B3
Document Type:
Certified copy of the license fee receipt
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
This receipt further confirms the respondent's legal compliance to conduct the bakery business.
Reference:
Ext.B4
Document Type:
Printout of the form GSTR-3B
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
These documents, although later rejected, were intended to demonstrate the respondent's business activities.
Reference:
Ext.B5 to B11
Document Type:
License
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
This was presented to prove the issuance of an operating license relevant to the bakery business.
Reference:
Ext.B12
Document Type:
Official receipt of professional tax fee
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
This receipt was used to support the argument that the respondent was operating the bakery.
Reference:
Ext.B13
Document Type:
User fee receipt
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
This document was meant to establish that all necessary payments for business operations were made.
Reference:
Ext.B14
Document Type:
Commission Report
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
This report was used but rejected on grounds of procedural objection.
Reference:
Ext.C1
Document Type:
Commission Report
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
Similar to Ext.C1, this document was marked but faced objections regarding the process.
Reference:
Ext.C2
Document Type:
Commission Report
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
This report was mentioned in the context of supporting the party claims but was also subjected to proof.
Reference:
Ext.C3