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
The court dismissed the petition filed by the plaintiffs seeking restoration of possession, ruling in favor of the defendant.
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.
Why Defendant Won:
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.
Supporting Evidence
The evidence shows that the respondent did not merely obtain possession and leave the premises idle. Instead, he actively engaged in licensing formalities, overcame administrative and legal hurdles, and commenced operations before being temporarily hindered by external, unavoidable events.
Judgment Evidence:
In the result, the petition is dismissed with costs to the respondent.
Parties Involved
Parties
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- V.J Tomy
- Party Age
- 66
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- George Viju
- Party Age
- 54
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- O.U Varghese
- Party Age
- 52
- Relation
- S/o
Plaintiffs Documents
Certified copy of the common order in RCR.394/2018 and 397/2018, Certified copy of the judgment in O.S. No.218/2020
Defendants Documents
Certified copy of the judgment in O.S. No. 218/2020, Certified copies of licenses issued by Cochin Corporation
Advocates
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- R. Sanjith
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Anees B.R.
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Sindhu Krishnan
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Paul K. Varghese
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Jalaludeen Mohmmad K.P.S.
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
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
Case Classification
Case Type
Rent Control Petition
Category
Other Civil Cases
District
Ernakulam
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court, Ernakulam
Common Reasons
Case Code
Case between V.J Tomy vs O.U Varghese regarding restoration of possession of rental property
Case Code Year
Case between V.J Tomy vs O.U Varghese regarding restoration of possession of rental property