Skip to main content
Niyamam AI Niyamam AI

Main navigation

  • Home
  • Lawyer Login
  • Lawyer Registration
  • About us
  • Contact
RENT CONTROL PETITION NO.11 OF 2016

Case between Kuruppanthoduvil Sainudheen et al vs Nalakath Arshad regarding eviction

Court
Rent Controller of Tirur
Judge
Smt. VINCY.T.V.
Order Date
2017-07-20
Duration
1 year 8 days
Case Closed
Thu, 07/20/2017 - 12:00

Judgement document from eCourt website

Judgment Document
Save Case Find Similar Cases

Case Summary

Petitioner seeks eviction of respondent who runs an Electronics and Electricals business in a shop room rented by petitioner, claiming bonafide need for starting Garment stitching and Sales shop for his dependent wife.

Judgment Outcome

Defendant Won
Interim Order
The petition for eviction is dismissed with costs based on the lack of bonafide need shown by the petitioner.
Judgment Favored
Defendant
Relief Granted
Not decided
Case Type
Civil Suit - Eviction
Final Judgment
No
The petition for eviction is dismissed with costs based on the lack of bonafide need shown by the petitioner.
Key Reasoning:
Reason not clearly mentioned
Why Defendant Won:
Reason not clearly mentioned
Supporting Evidence

Judgment Evidence:

Petitioner's bonafide need for eviction was found to be lacking, hence the petition is dismissed with costs.

Parties Involved

Parties

Party Role
Plaintiff
Party Name
Kuruppanthoduvil Sainudheen
Party Age
44
Relation
S/o. Saithuhaji
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
Nalakath Arshad
Party Age
31
Relation
S/o. Ashraf
Plaintiffs Documents
15-06-2015 : Copy of lawyer notice, 15-06-2015 : Postal receipt, 15-06-2016 : Acknowledgment card, 24-06-2015 : Reply notice
Defendants Documents
03-09-2014 : Certified copy of assignment deed. No. 3474/2014, 18-05-2015 to 15-12-2015 : Various Postal receipts, 04-06-2015 : Receipt, 06-07-2015 : Receipt

Advocates

Reliefs

Relief Type: Eviction
Outcome: Not Decided
Description:
Petitioner seeks eviction of respondent under Section 11(2) and 11(3) of Kerala Building (Lease & Rent) Control Act, 1965.
Evidence:
Relief Type: Occupation by Dependent
Outcome: Not Decided
Description:
Petitioner bonafide needs the shop room to start a business for his dependent wife.
Evidence:

Documents & Evidence

Document Type: Copy of Lawyer Notice
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Notice sent to the respondent demanding vacant possession.
Reference:
A1(a)
Document Type: Certified copy of assignment deed
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
Documented evidence of the respondent's business in the shop.
Reference:
B1

Case Classification

Case Type
Civil Suit - Eviction
Category
Eviction and Rent Control
District
Malappuram
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court, Tirur / Rent Control Court
Common Reasons
Case Code
Case between Kuruppanthoduvil Sainudheen et al vs Nalakath Arshad regarding eviction
Case Code Year
Case between Kuruppanthoduvil Sainudheen et al vs Nalakath Arshad regarding eviction

Quick Facts

Location
Tirur
District
Malappuram
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court, Tirur / Rent Control Court
Case Filed
Tue, 07/12/2016 - 12:00
Case Closed
Thu, 07/20/2017 - 12:00
From
Sat, 07/01/2017 - 12:00
To
Fri, 07/14/2017 - 12:00
Outcome Confidence
70%

Involved Entities

Electronics and Electricals Business

Similar Cases

Case between Pelayam Parmabil Hamza and Kunhikrishnan et al regarding eviction
Court of the Munsiff of Tirur
Civil Suit - Eviction Defendant Won
Case between Moideenkutty @ Kunhava Haji vs Puthenpeediyan Ali regarding eviction
Court of the Munsiff of Tirur
Civil Suit - Eviction Plaintiff Won
Case between Valappil Pookunhiyakath Beeran Haji vs C.T. Shuhad regarding eviction
Court of the Munsiff of Tirur
Civil Suit - Eviction Plaintiff Won
Case between Ayisha vs Yahu regarding eviction
Court of the Munsiff of Tirur
Civil Suit - Eviction Defendant Won
Case between Ponnani Ma oonathool Islam Association et al vs K.K. Usman regarding eviction and arrears of rent
Court of the Munsiff of Tirur
Civil Suit - Eviction Defendant Won