Case Summary
Shyla Hydrose filed a petition seeking eviction of P S Kuriakkose from a shop room she owns, claiming it is necessary for her to conduct a sanitary items business. The respondent argues that the petitioner had previously attempted eviction on similar grounds, which was dismissed.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Plaintiff
Relief Granted
Case Type
Rent Control Petition
Final Judgment
No
The court found in favor of the petitioner, allowing the eviction of the tenant from the premises to accommodate her business needs.
Why Plaintiff Won:
The court determined the petitioner's need for the premises was genuine and proved.
The court determined the petitioner's need for the premises was genuine and proved.
Losing Side's Weaknesses:
The court determined the petitioner's need for the premises was genuine and proved.
The court determined the petitioner's need for the premises was genuine and proved.
Supporting Evidence
The bonafide need was projected by the petitioner and PW1 also deposed about her bonafide need. Nothing was brought out in the cross examination of PW1 so to discredit the bonafide need projected by the petitioner.
Judgment Evidence:
The rent control petition is allowed under Section 11 (3) of the Act. The respondent is hereby directed to put the landlord in possession of the petition schedule building within 30 days from the date of order.
Parties Involved
Parties
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Shyla Hydrose
- Party Age
- 47
- Relation
- W/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- P S Kuriakkose
- Party Age
- 47
Plaintiffs Documents
Original Power of Attorney dated 09.12.2020
Defendants Documents
Certified copy of RCP No: 171/2010, Certified copy of objection in RCP 171/2010, Certified copy of Order in RCP 171/2010, Income tax returns from 2018 to 2025
Advocates
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- K R Vinod
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- M S Letha
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Srinath V
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Vimel Dev
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Sreelekha K S
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- KJ Kuriachan
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
Reliefs
Relief Type:
Eviction
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
The petitioner sought eviction of the respondent to utilize the shop for her business.
Evidence:
The rent control petition is allowed under Section 11 (3) of the Act.
Documents & Evidence
Document Type:
Power of Attorney
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Used to establish the petitioner's authority in the case.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type:
Certified copy of RCP No: 171/2010
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
Cited as prior case where eviction based on the same ground was dismissed.
Reference:
Ext.B1
Document Type:
Certified copy of Objection in RCP 171/2010
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
Provided the respondent's objections in the previous eviction case.
Reference:
Ext.B2
Document Type:
Certified copy of Order in RCP 171/2010
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
Showed that the previous claim of bona fide need was found not genuine.
Reference:
Ext.B3
Document Type:
Income tax return
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
Demonstrated the defendant's income over multiple years to support his claims.
Reference:
Ext.B4 to B10
Case Classification
Case Type
Rent Control Petition
Category
Eviction and Rent Control
District
Ernakulam
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court, Ernakulam
Common Reasons
Case Code
Case between Shyla Hydrose vs P S Kuriakkose regarding eviction under Section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 1965
Case Code Year
Case between Shyla Hydrose vs P S Kuriakkose regarding eviction under Section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 1965