Case Summary
Two petitioners sought eviction of a room rented to the respondent to commence a profitable hotel business stating the room's suitability and lack of suitable rooms for the respondent's business.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Plaintiff
Relief Granted
Eviction and cost recovery
Case Type
Rent Control Petition
Final Judgment
No
Why Plaintiff Won:
The respondent failed to counter the petitioner's claims of bonafide need for the room for a profitable business. The court found the petitioners' need genuine and granted eviction.
The respondent failed to counter the petitioner's claims of bonafide need for the room for a profitable business. The court found the petitioners' need genuine and granted eviction.
Judgment Evidence:
The petition is allowed under section 11(3) of the Kerala Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act 1965 as follows:- a) The respondent is directed to put the petitioner in vacant possession of the petition schedule property within one month from today. b) The petitioner is entitled to realize the cost of the petition from the respondent.
Parties Involved
Plaintiffs
Abdul Latheef (65 years)
Kayalmadhathil House, Keezhedathu Road, Naduvilangadi, Pookkayil Bazar, Tirur.
Abdul Hameed (63 years)
Same as Abdul Latheef
Defendants
Indus Motors Company, Private Ltd (Age not specified years)
M.G. Road, Thevara, Ernakulam
Reliefs
Relief Type:
Eviction
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
Petitioners granted vacant possession of the petition schedule property and right to recover petition costs.
Evidence:
The petition is allowed under section 11(3) of the Kerala Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act 1965 as follows:- a) The respondent is directed to put the petitioner in vacant possession of the petition schedule property within one month from today. b) The petitioner is entitled to realize the cost of the petition from the respondent.