Case Summary
The petitioner, C.A. Mathew, is seeking eviction of the respondent, T.V.C Russel Muhammed, for non-payment of rent and for his son’s bonafide requirement of the property. The respondent has not paid rent since February 2024 and has not responded to notices.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Plaintiff
Relief Granted
Order for eviction and costs of the proceedings
Case Type
Rent Control Petition
Final Judgment
No
The rent control petition is allowed, and the respondent is directed to vacate the premises in one month and to pay costs of the proceedings.
Why Plaintiff Won:
The petitioner showed bonafide need for the property and the respondent failed to pay rent.
The petitioner showed bonafide need for the property and the respondent failed to pay rent.
Losing Side's Weaknesses:
Not available
Not available
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. There is nothing on record to show that the respondent is entitled to the protection of the first and second proviso to section 11 (3) of the Act.
Judgment Evidence:
In the result, rent control petition is allowed follows: 1.Petition is allowed under section 11 (2) (b) and Section 11 (3) of the of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 1965. 2.Order for eviction under section 11( 2) (b) of the Act is subject to section 11 (2) (c) of the Act. 3.Respondent is directed to put the petitioner in vacant possession of the petition schedule building within one month from the date of this order.
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
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Sri. K. M. Musthafa
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Sri. Zameel K. T
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
Reliefs
Relief Type:
Eviction
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
Order for eviction of the respondent from the petition schedule property
Evidence:
In the result, rent control petition is allowed follows: 1. Petition is allowed under section 11 (2) (b) and Section 11 (3) of the of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 1965.
Relief Type:
Other
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
Respondent directed to pay costs of the proceedings to the petitioner
Evidence:
Respondent is also directed to pay costs of the proceedings to the petitioner.
Documents & Evidence
Document Type:
Lawyer Notice
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Notice issued to the respondent to vacate the building
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type:
Postal receipt
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Receipt for postage of the notice sent to the respondent
Reference:
Ext.A1(a)
Document Type:
Acknowledgment
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Acknowledgment of 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
Non-payment of rent
Case Code
Case between C.A. Mathew vs T.V.C Russel Muhammed regarding eviction under the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act.
Case Code Year
Case between C.A. Mathew vs T.V.C Russel Muhammed regarding eviction under the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act.