Skip to main content
Niyamam AI Niyamam AI

Main navigation

  • Home
  • Lawyer Login
  • Lawyer Registration
  • About us
  • Contact
R.C.P. No. 145/2023

Case between T.K. Mathew @ Kunjukunju Mathew vs K.A. Bharathan regarding eviction of tenant

Court
THE COURT OF THE THIRD ADDL. MUNSIFF & RENT CONTROLLER, ERNAKULAM
Judge
Smt. REEJA R. NAIR
Order Date
2025-10-21
Duration
Case Closed
Tue, 10/21/2025 - 12:00

Judgement document from eCourt website

Judgment Document
Save Case Find Similar Cases

Case Summary

T.K. Mathew filed a rent control petition against K.A. Bharathan for eviction of the latter from a shop he rented, citing a bonafide need to start a hardware business. The tenant contested the eviction, claiming that the landlord's need was not genuine.

Judgment Outcome

Plaintiff Won
Interim Order
The court allowed the eviction petition and directed the tenant to vacate the premises within 30 days. The petitioner was also granted the costs of the proceedings.
Judgment Favored
Plaintiff
Relief Granted
Eviction of the respondent from the petition schedule building
Case Type
Rent Control Petition
Final Judgment
No
The court allowed the eviction petition and directed the tenant to vacate the premises within 30 days. The petitioner was also granted the costs of the proceedings.
Why Plaintiff Won:
The court found the landlord's need for the building genuine and bonafide.
Losing Side's Weaknesses:
The court found the landlord's need for the building genuine and bonafide.
Supporting Evidence
The bona fide need projected by the petitioner remains unshaken during cross-examination.

Judgment Evidence:

In the result, 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
T.K. Mathew @ Kunjukunju Mathew
Party Age
70
Relation
S/o
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
K.A. Bharathan
Relation
S/o
Plaintiffs Documents
Demand notice dated 30.06.2023, Original reply notice dated 17.07.2023
Defendants Documents

Advocates

Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
K.R. Vinod
Appearance Type
Main Counsel
Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
M.S. Letha Arun Roy
Appearance Type
Assisting Counsel
Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
Mohammed Razdi
Appearance Type
Assisting Counsel
Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
George Roy
Appearance Type
Assisting Counsel
Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
Lovewin Vinu
Appearance Type
Assisting Counsel
Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
Kurian Maxie
Appearance Type
Assisting Counsel
Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
Rahul S.
Appearance Type
Assisting Counsel
Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
Krishna Bindu
Appearance Type
Assisting Counsel
Party Role
Defendant
Advocate Name
R.Rajesh
Appearance Type
Main Counsel
Party Role
Defendant
Advocate Name
Sibi Karun
Appearance Type
Assisting Counsel

Reliefs

Relief Type: Eviction
Outcome: Granted
Description:
The petitioner sought the eviction of the respondent from the premises.
Evidence:
The rent control petition is allowed under Section 11(3) of the Act.
Relief Type: Costs
Outcome: Granted
Description:
The petitioner is entitled to recover the cost of the proceedings from the respondent.
Evidence:
The petitioner is entitled to recover the cost of the proceedings from the respondent.

Documents & Evidence

Document Type: Demand Notice
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Sent by the petitioner's lawyer requesting the respondent to vacate the premises by a specified date.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type: Reply Notice
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Received from the respondent in response to the demand notice, which contained false claims.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type: Commission Report
Submitted By: Court
Relevance:
Provided evidence regarding the condition and ownership of properties involved in the case.
Reference:
Ext.C1
Document Type: Photographs
Submitted By: Court
Relevance:
Visual evidence of properties related to the case.
Reference:
Ext.C1(a)
Document Type: Compact Disk
Submitted By: Court
Relevance:
Contains the photographs produced along with Ext.C1.
Reference:
Ext.C1(b)
Document Type: Certification
Submitted By: Court
Relevance:
Certification of the photographs produced.
Reference:
Ext.C1(c)

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 T.K. Mathew @ Kunjukunju Mathew vs K.A. Bharathan regarding eviction of tenant
Case Code Year
Case between T.K. Mathew @ Kunjukunju Mathew vs K.A. Bharathan regarding eviction of tenant

Quick Facts

Location
Ernakulam
District
Ernakulam
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court, Ernakulam
Case Filed
Tue, 11/01/2022 - 12:00
Case Closed
Tue, 10/21/2025 - 12:00
From
Wed, 10/01/2025 - 12:00
To
Fri, 10/31/2025 - 12:00
Outcome Confidence
95%

Involved Entities

Similar Cases

Case between N.X. Joseph Jason vs Noble George regarding eviction and rent fixation
THE COURT OF THE THIRD ADDL. MUNSIFF & RENT CONTROLLER, ERNAKULAM
Rent Control Petition Plaintiff Won
Case between P.B Gopalakrishnan vs Ms. Dilshana Siyad regarding Rent Control Petition
COURT OF THE THIRD ADDL. MUNSIFF & RENT CONTROLLER
Rent Control Petition Plaintiff Won
Case between Keecheri Sree Rama Varma Kerala Pattarya Samajam vs P.U. Rameshan regarding rent control compliance
THE COURT OF THE THIRD ADDL. MUNSIFF & RENT CONTROLLER
Rent Control Petition Plaintiff Won
Case between Dr. M.N Subramanian et al vs M/s Jigucheon Pvt Ltd et al regarding Rent Control Petition
THE COURT OF THE THIRD ADDL. MUNSIFF & RENT CONTROLLER, ERNAKULAM
Rent Control Petition Plaintiff Won
Case between Hameed et al vs Shamsudheen et al regarding Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control)Act, 1965
THE COURT OF THE THIRD ADDL. MUNSIFF & RENT CONTROLLER, ERNAKULAM
Rent Control Petition Unknown