Case Summary
Petitioner seeks eviction of respondent to reconstruct the building for own occupation, due to alleged non-payment of rent and refusal to vacate after lease termination.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Plaintiff
Relief Granted
Vacant possession of the property for reconstruction
Case Type
Rent Control Petition - Eviction
Final Judgment
No
The court granted the petitioner's request for eviction to enable reconstruction of the building for the petitioner's intended commercial activities.
Why Plaintiff Won:
The court found the petitioner's bonafide need for reconstruction and the respondent's failure to fulfill lease obligations.
The court found the petitioner's bonafide need for reconstruction and the respondent's failure to fulfill lease obligations.
Losing Side's Weaknesses:
The court found the petitioner's bonafide need for reconstruction and the respondent's failure to fulfill lease obligations.
The court found the petitioner's bonafide need for reconstruction and the respondent's failure to fulfill lease obligations.
Supporting Evidence
Since no counter was filed, the evidence adduced by the petitioners remained unchallenged. Pw1 has stated that there is no other building for them to start the intended business. Moreover in Ext.C1, it is reported that vacant quarters are available nearly 200 meters away from the plaint schedule building. I find no reason to disbelieve the bonofide need put forward by the petitioners. So, there is nothing on record to non suit the petitioner under the first proviso to S.11 (3) of Kerala Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act 1965.
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 respondent shall pay costs of the petition.
Parties Involved
Parties
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Kunhimarakkar. C.P
- Party Age
- 47
- Relation
- Son of Abdulla
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Kumar
- Party Age
- 55
- Relation
- Son of Raman
Plaintiffs Documents
Lawyer Notice dated 08-01-2016, Postal Receipt, Acknowledgment Card, Reply Notice dated 12-02-2016
Defendants Documents
Not Applicable
Advocates
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Sri. Suresh. A. Alingal
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Sri. M.A. Ismail
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
Reliefs
Relief Type:
Eviction
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
Vacant possession of the property for reconstruction
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.
Documents & Evidence
Document Type:
Lawyer Notice
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Issued on 08-01-2016 requesting enhancement of rent and vacation of the room.
Reference:
A1(a)
Document Type:
Reply Notice
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Responded to by the defendants on 12-02-2016 raising false contentions.
Reference:
A2
Case Classification
Case Type
Rent Control Petition - Eviction
Category
Eviction and Rent Control
District
Malappuram
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court, Tirur / Rent Control Court
Common Reasons
Non-payment of rent
Case Code
Case between Kunhimarakkar. C.P et al vs Kumar et al regarding eviction for reconstruction
Case Code Year
Case between Kunhimarakkar. C.P et al vs Kumar et al regarding eviction for reconstruction