Case Summary
C.A. Mathew, the petitioner, filed a rent control petition against T.V.C Russel Muhammed, the respondent, for eviction due to non-payment of rent. The petitioner claimed bonafide need for the property for his son's business.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Plaintiff
Relief Granted
Eviction of the respondent from the petition schedule building within one month and payment of costs.
Case Type
Rent Control Petition
Final Judgment
No
The court allowed the petition for eviction under the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, citing the petitioner's bonafide need for the property.
Why Plaintiff Won:
The petitioner established bonafide need for the property.
The petitioner established bonafide need for the property.
Losing Side's Weaknesses:
The petitioner established bonafide need for the property.
The petitioner established bonafide need for the property.
Supporting Evidence
PW1 has also deposed the bonafide need of his son to start a garment shop in the petition schedule building and adjacent shop room.
Judgment Evidence:
In the result, rent control petition is allowed follows: Petition is allowed under Section 11 (2) (b) and Section 11 (3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 1965.
Parties Involved
Parties
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- C.A. Mathew
- Party Age
- 77
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- T.V.C Russel Muhammed
- Party Age
- 50
- Relation
- S/o
Plaintiffs Documents
Copy of Lawyer notice dated 09.04.2024, Postal Receipt, Acknowledgment original.
Defendants Documents
Advocates
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Sri. Razal Rahiman
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Jyothi
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Adv. K. M. Musthafa
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Adv. Zameel K. T
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
Reliefs
Relief Type:
Eviction
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
Order for eviction of the respondent from the petition schedule building.
Evidence:
The petitioner is entitled to an order of eviction under section 11 (3) of the Act as well.
Documents & Evidence
Document Type:
Copy of Lawyer Notice
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Notice was issued to the respondent calling for vacating the premises.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type:
Postal receipt
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Document serving as proof of sending the notice.
Reference:
Ext.A1(a)
Document Type:
Acknowledgment original
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Acknowledgment card confirming receipt of the notice by the respondent.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Case Classification
Case Type
Rent Control Petition
Category
Eviction and Rent Control
District
Kozhikode
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court 2 Kozhikode
Common Reasons
Case Code
Case between C.A. Mathew vs T.V.C Russel Muhammed regarding eviction under Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act.
Case Code Year
Case between C.A. Mathew vs T.V.C Russel Muhammed regarding eviction under Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act.
Case Flags
Cheque-Related Case
Nature of Cheque Case
Cheque Dishonour