Case Summary
Petitioner seeks eviction of respondents from a rented property due to bonafide need for petitioner's husband to start a garment business. Respondents contest subletting claims and challenge bonafide need projected by the petitioner.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Plaintiff
Relief Granted
Eviction
Case Type
Rent Control Petition - Eviction
Final Judgment
No
Why Plaintiff Won:
The court found the petitioner's bonafide need for the property for setting up a garment business by the petitioner's dependent husband as genuine and upheld the claim for eviction under Section 11(3).
The court found the petitioner's bonafide need for the property for setting up a garment business by the petitioner's dependent husband as genuine and upheld the claim for eviction under Section 11(3).
Judgment Evidence:
Petition is allowed under S.11(3). The respondents shall pay the costs of the suit.
Parties Involved
Plaintiffs
Kakkadavath Leela (50 years)
Thrikkandiyur amsom Thekkummuri desom, Tirur Taluk. P.O. Thekkummuri. Tirur - - 676 105
Defendants
Sameer.K.M. (38 years)
Koyakunhiyakath Moothattu Veedu, Thalakkad amsom desom, Tirur Taluk. P.O. B.P.Angadi. Tirur - - 676 102
Palamparambil Abdulsamad (46 years)
Thrikkandiyur amsom Thekkummuri desom, Tirur Taluk. P.O. Thekkummuri. Tirur - - 676 105
Reliefs
Relief Type:
Eviction
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
Petitioners allowed eviction of respondents from the property in question.
Evidence:
Petition is allowed under S.11(3). The respondents shall pay the costs of the suit.
Documents & Evidence
Document Type:
Copy of Lawyer Notice
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Communication of termination of tenancy to the respondents.
Reference:
A1(a)
Document Type:
Discharge Summary
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
Medical history of a respondent.
Reference:
B1