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

Main navigation

  • Home
  • Lawyer Login
  • Lawyer Registration
RENT CONTROL PETITION NO. 36 OF 2018

Case between Yoonas Abdul Rasakh, Yasikh Abdul Rasakh vs Puzhankarayillath Muhammed Mansoor regarding eviction under the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act.

Court
RENT CONTROL COURT
Judge
Sri. JANKISH NARAYANAN
Order Date
2019-09-30
Duration

Judgement document from eCourt website

Open judgment PDF (eCourt)
Find Similar Cases

Case Summary

The petitioners, Yoonas Abdul Rasakh and Yasikh Abdul Rasakh, are seeking an eviction order against Puzhankarayillath Muhammed Mansoor for non-payment of rent. The petitioners require the building for starting a Super Market, whereas the respondent claims there is no tenant-landlord relationship.

Judgment Outcome

Plaintiff Won
Interim Order
The court allowed the eviction petition, directing the respondent to vacate the premises within two months and to pay the petitioners' costs.
Judgment Favored
Plaintiff
Relief Granted
Eviction of the respondent and costs of the petition to the petitioners.
Case Type
Rent Control Petition
Final Judgment
No
Why Plaintiff Won:
The petitioners proved their bona fide need for the premises to start a Super Market and the respondent's non-payment of rent.

Judgment Evidence:

In the result the petition is allowed with cost, as follows 1 The respondent is hereby directed to give vacant possession of the petition schedule building to the petitioners within two months from today.

Parties Involved

Plaintiffs

Yoonas Abdul Rasakh (Age not specified years) P.O.Vengaloor, Thalakkad Village, PIN – 676 102 Yasikh Abdul Rasakh (Age not specified years) P.O.Vengaloor, Thalakkad Village, PIN – 676 102

Defendants

Puzhankarayillath Muhammed Mansoor (Age not specified years) Arafa Complex, P.O.Perinchanam, PIN – 680686

Reliefs

Relief Type: Eviction
Outcome: Granted
Description:
The petitioners are granted eviction of the respondent from the premises.
Evidence:
I find that the petitioners are entitled to get an order of eviction under S.11(2)(b) and 11(3) of the Rent Control Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965.
Relief Type: Costs
Outcome: Granted
Description:
The respondent shall pay the costs of the petition to the petitioners.
Evidence:
The costs shall follow the event, hence the respondent shall pay the costs of the petition to the petitioners.

Documents & Evidence

Document Type: Settlement Deed
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document proves the claim of the petitioners regarding their need for the building.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type: Plaint
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document references the ongoing suit filed by the respondent, providing context to the eviction petition.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type: Account Statement
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document indicates the financial transactions relevant to the case.
Reference:
Ext.A3
Document Type: Lawyer Notice
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
This notice demanded the respondent to vacate the premises, forming a basis for the eviction request.
Reference:
Ext.A4 (a)
Document Type: Postal receipt
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document serves as proof that the lawyer's notice was sent to the respondent.
Reference:
Ext.A4 (b)

Quick Facts

Location
TIRUR
Case Filed
Tue, 11/06/2018 - 12:00
Outcome Confidence
90%

Involved Entities

Similar Cases