Skip to main content
Niyamam AI Niyamam AI

Main navigation

  • Home
  • Lawyer Login
  • Lawyer Registration
  • About us
  • Contact
R C P No. 88/2018

Case between Dr.Mohana Sundaram vs V.Hariharan regarding eviction of tenant

Court
Rent Control Court/Additional Munsiff-II
Judge
Smt. Meera John.K
Order Date
2025-03-10
Duration
approximately-6 years 2 months
Case Closed
Mon, 03/10/2025 - 12:00

Judgement document from eCourt website

Judgment Document
Save Case Find Similar Cases

Case Summary

Dr. Mohana Sundaram is the petitioner seeking eviction of V. Hariharan, the tenant, from the petition schedule shoproom for the expansion of his clinic due to space constraints. The petitioner alleges that the respondent has defaulted in paying rent and does not conduct business in the petition schedule room.

Judgment Outcome

Plaintiff Won
Interim Order
The court allowed the petition for eviction, granting the petitioner the right to utilize the shoproom to expand his clinic, as the necessity for more space was established.
Judgment Favored
Plaintiff
Relief Granted
Eviction of the respondent from the petition schedule property
Case Type
Rent Control
Final Judgment
No
The court allowed the petition for eviction, granting the petitioner the right to utilize the shoproom to expand his clinic, as the necessity for more space was established.
Why Plaintiff Won:
The petitioner successfully demonstrated bonafide need for the property to expand his clinic, which was facing space constraints.
Losing Side's Weaknesses:
The petitioner successfully demonstrated bonafide need for the property to expand his clinic, which was facing space constraints.
Supporting Evidence
The respondent has failed to prove that the need put forward by the landlord is not a bonafide one.

Judgment Evidence:

In the result, the petition is allowed under Section 11(3) of Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. The respondent is directed to surrender the vacant possession of petition schedule property within a period of two months from today failing which the petitioner can get the order executed through the process known to law.

Parties Involved

Parties

Party Role
Plaintiff
Party Name
Dr.Mohana Sundaram
Party Age
63
Relation
S/o
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
V.Hariharan
Party Age
57
Relation
S/o
Plaintiffs Documents
Lawyer notice to respondent, Reply Notice with Postal cover, Certified copy of Order in RCP 21/2023
Defendants Documents

Advocates

Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
Sri.K.M.Musthafa
Appearance Type
Main Counsel
Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
Anooja A
Appearance Type
Assisting Counsel
Party Role
Defendant
Advocate Name
Sri. K.P.Mayan
Appearance Type
Main Counsel
Party Role
Defendant
Advocate Name
P.N.Sreeraj
Appearance Type
Assisting Counsel

Reliefs

Relief Type: Eviction
Outcome: Granted
Description:
The petitioner sought eviction of the respondent from the petition schedule property.
Evidence:
Hence, the petition is allowed under Section 11(3) of Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act.
Relief Type: Costs
Outcome: Granted
Description:
The petitioner is entitled to recover costs from the respondent.
Evidence:
The petitioner is entitled to get the costs of the petition from the respondent.

Documents & Evidence

Document Type: Lawyer Notice
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
The document indicates the petitioner’s formal request to the respondent regarding the possession of the shoproom.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type: Reply Notice
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
The document is the respondent's reply to the petitioner's notice, contesting the claims made.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type: Certified copy of Order
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document provides a legal basis referencing past decisions relevant to the current petition.
Reference:
Ext.A3
Document Type: Commission Report
Submitted By: Court
Relevance:
It contains findings regarding the condition of the property and supports the petitioner's claims.
Reference:
Ext.C1
Document Type: Sketch in Commission report
Submitted By: Court
Relevance:
The sketch illustrates the layout of the property in question as described in the commission report.
Reference:
Ext.C1(a)

Case Classification

Case Type
Rent Control
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 Dr.Mohana Sundaram vs V.Hariharan regarding eviction of tenant
Case Code Year
Case between Dr.Mohana Sundaram vs V.Hariharan regarding eviction of tenant

Quick Facts

Location
Kozhikode
District
Kozhikode
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court 2 Kozhikode
Case Filed
Mon, 01/01/2018 - 12:00
Case Closed
Mon, 03/10/2025 - 12:00
From
Sat, 03/01/2025 - 12:00
To
Sat, 05/31/2025 - 12:00
Outcome Confidence
90%

Involved Entities

Similar Cases

Case between Mundoli Abdu Rasak vs K. P. Assankoya et al regarding eviction due to non-payment of rent and sub-letting
RENT CONTROL COURT/ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF-II
Rent Control Plaintiff Won
Case between P. P. Alikoya vs M/s. Muthoot Fin. Corp. Limited regarding fixation of fair rent
Rent Control Court/Additional Munsiff-II
Rent Control Plaintiff Won
Case between Kozhikode Samoothiri High School et al vs Samoothiri Raja Kudumba Kendra samithi et al regarding Rent Control
Rent Control Court/Additional Munsiff-II
Rent Control Defendant Won
Case between Fathimabi and Sakeena vs Haroon. R. Rasheed regarding eviction for non-payment of rent.
RENT CONTROL COURT/ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF-II, KOZHIKODE
Rent Control Plaintiff Won
Case between Moideenkutty Haji vs Chandran regarding eviction of shoproom
RENT CONTROL COURT/ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF-II, KOZHIKODE
Rent Control Plaintiff Won