Skip to main content
Niyamam AI Niyamam AI

Main navigation

  • Home
  • Lawyer Login
  • Lawyer Registration
  • About us
  • Contact
R C P No.18/2022

Case between Kattil Veeettil Abdurahiman vs N.V Aalikkoya et al regarding eviction order

Court
Rent Control Court/Additional Munsiff-II
Judge
Smt. Anjali.P
Order Date
2025-08-18
Duration
approximately-3 years 9 months
Case Closed
Mon, 08/18/2025 - 12:00

Judgement document from eCourt website

Judgment Document
Save Case Find Similar Cases

Case Summary

Kattil Veeettil Abdurahiman filed a rent control petition against N.V Aalikkoya and others for eviction due to non-payment of rent and subletting the property without consent. The court found in favor of the petitioner.

Judgment Outcome

Plaintiff Won
Interim Order
The court allowed the eviction petition filed by the petitioner due to the tenants' failure to pay rent and unauthorized subletting. The respondents were ordered to vacate the premises and pay costs.
Judgment Favored
Plaintiff
Relief Granted
Eviction order under section 11(2)(b), section 11(3), section 11(4)(i)
Case Type
Rent Control Petition
Final Judgment
No
The court allowed the eviction petition filed by the petitioner due to the tenants' failure to pay rent and unauthorized subletting. The respondents were ordered to vacate the premises and pay costs.
Why Plaintiff Won:
The petitioner proved the case under the relevant sections of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act.
Losing Side's Weaknesses:
The petitioner proved the case under the relevant sections of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act.
Supporting Evidence
The landlord tenant relationship is not in dispute. The petitioner has established that he is entitled to an order under section 11 (2)(b) of the Act. Hence, he is entitled to an order of eviction under section 11 (3) of the Act.

Judgment Evidence:

In the result, 1. The rent control petition is allowed under section 11(2)(b) section 11 (3), section 11 (4) (i) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 1965. 2. The order of eviction under section 11(2)(b) shall be subject to section 11 (2)(c) of the Act 3. The respondents are directed to put the petitioner in vacant possession of the petition schedule building within one month from the date of this order. 4. The respondents are also directed to pay costs of the proceedings to the petitioner.

Parties Involved

Parties

Party Role
Plaintiff
Party Name
Kattil Veeettil Abdurahiman
Party Age
68
Relation
S/o
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
N.V Aalikkoya
Party Age
68
Relation
S/o
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
T.M.Aamina
Party Age
62
Relation
W/o
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
T.K.Sadhique
Party Age
46
Relation
S/o
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
T.K.Razak
Party Age
45
Relation
S/o
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
T.K.Rafeek
Party Age
42
Relation
S/o
Plaintiffs Documents
Deed No 2185/2002 of SRO Meenchatha, Lawyer Notice dated 18.10.2021, Reply Notices dated 26.10.2021 and 30.12.2021, Lease Deed dated 06.12.1976.
Defendants Documents

Advocates

Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
Sri.B.M.Shamsudheen
Appearance Type
Main Counsel
Party Role
Defendant
Advocate Name
Sri. Joy Abraham
Appearance Type
Main Counsel
Party Role
Defendant
Advocate Name
Sri. K.K.Krishnakumar
Appearance Type
Main Counsel
Party Role
Defendant
Advocate Name
Vandana Venugopal
Appearance Type
Main Counsel
Party Role
Defendant
Advocate Name
Aghil Raj.K
Appearance Type
Main Counsel

Reliefs

Relief Type: Eviction
Outcome: Granted
Description:
The petitioner sought eviction of the respondents from the schedule building.
Evidence:
In view of the foregoing discussion, this court is of the considered view that the petitioner is entitled to an order of eviction under all grounds canvassed by him.
Relief Type: Costs
Outcome: Granted
Description:
The respondents were directed to pay the costs of the proceedings.
Evidence:
The respondents are also directed to pay costs of the proceedings to the petitioner.

Documents & Evidence

Document Type: Lawyer Notice
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document was used to establish the petitioner's claim regarding the arrears of rent.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type: Postal Receipts
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
These receipts were used as evidence of sending the lawyer notice.
Reference:
Ext.A1(a)
Document Type: Postal Acknowledgment Cards
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
These cards served as proof of receipt of the notice by the respondents.
Reference:
Ext.A1(b)
Document Type: Reply Notice
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document was presented to counter the claims made by the petitioner.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type: Reply Notice
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document was used to present the response of the other respondents.
Reference:
Ext.A3
Document Type: Lease Deed
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document was used to establish the tenancy agreement.
Reference:
Ext.A4
Document Type: Commission Report
Submitted By: Court
Relevance:
This report provided evidence regarding the condition of the property in question.
Reference:
Ext.C1
Document Type: Commissioner’s Plan
Submitted By: Court
Relevance:
This plan supplemented the commission report by providing visual details.
Reference:
Ext.C1(a)

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 Kattil Veeettil Abdurahiman vs N.V Aalikkoya et al regarding eviction order
Case Code Year
Case between Kattil Veeettil Abdurahiman vs N.V Aalikkoya et al regarding eviction order

Quick Facts

Location
Kozhikode
District
Kozhikode
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court 2 Kozhikode
Case Filed
Sat, 01/01/2022 - 12:00
Case Closed
Mon, 08/18/2025 - 12:00
From
Sun, 06/01/2025 - 12:00
To
Sun, 08/31/2025 - 12:00
Outcome Confidence
95%

Involved Entities

Similar Cases

Case between C.Jayaraj Panicker et al vs M.P.Mujeeb Rahman regarding eviction and rent arrears
Rent Control Court/Additional Munsiff-II, Kozhikode
Rent Control Petition Plaintiff Won
Case between Devasya vs V. K.Sasi regarding eviction from shop room
Munsiff-II, Kozhikode
Rent Control Petition Plaintiff Won
Case between Pandikasala Vahija et al vs Musthafa Alungal regarding eviction from shop rooms
Rent Control Court/Munsiff-II, Kozhikode
Rent Control Petition Plaintiff Won
Case between Pandikasala Sabira et al vs Hashim Thangal regarding eviction from shop room
Munsiff-II, Kozhikode
Rent Control Petition Plaintiff Won
Case between Pandikasala Vahija et al vs Musthafa Alungal regarding eviction.
Rent Control Court/Munsiff-II
Rent Control Petition Plaintiff Won