Case Summary
Ponmanichintakath Sulaikha, the petitioner, is seeking eviction of her tenants, V. Hassan Koya and P. Aboobacker, due to her husband's bonafide requirement of the shop room for business. The respondents contend that the petition lacks genuine need.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Defendant
Relief Granted
Case Type
Rent Control Petition
Final Judgment
No
The court dismissed the eviction petition stating that the petitioner failed to establish a bonafide need for the shop room as she has other properties and did not provide special reasons for not occupying them.
Key Reasoning:
The respondents successfully proved the existence of other properties owned by the petitioner, undermining her claim of bonafide need.
The respondents successfully proved the existence of other properties owned by the petitioner, undermining her claim of bonafide need.
Why Defendant Won:
The respondents successfully proved the existence of other properties owned by the petitioner, undermining her claim of bonafide need.
The respondents successfully proved the existence of other properties owned by the petitioner, undermining her claim of bonafide need.
Supporting Evidence
The petitioner failed to establish her bonafide need under section 11(3) of the act. The respondents are entitled to claim the benefit of first and second proviso of section 11(3) of the Act only when the landlord establishes the bonafide.
Judgment Evidence:
Therefore, the RCP is liable to be dismissed. I find no reason for deviating from the normal rules of costs that costs will follow the event.
Parties Involved
Parties
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Ponmanichintakath Sulaikha
- Party Age
- 66
- Relation
- W/o
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- S.V. Abdul Nasar
- Party Age
- 58
- Relation
- Represented by
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- V. Hassan Koya
- Party Age
- 63
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- P. Aboobacker
- Party Age
- 54
- Relation
- S/o
Plaintiffs Documents
Copy of lawyer notice, Ration card No.044950, Copy of passport of Essakoya
Defendants Documents
Certified copy of deposition, Official receipts issued by Kozhikode Municipal Corporation
Advocates
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Sri. M. Raghukumar
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Sri. K.M. Muhammed Iqubal
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
Reliefs
Relief Type:
Eviction
Outcome:
Refused
Description:
Petition for eviction of respondents from the shop room based on claimed bonafide need.
Evidence:
The petitioner has failed to establish her bonafide need under section 11(3) of the Act.
Documents & Evidence
Document Type:
Lawyer Notice
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
The notice requests the respondents to vacate the shop room based on bonafide need.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type:
Reply Notice
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Respondents' reply notice containing their contentions against the eviction.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type:
Driving License
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Evidence of identity for the petitioner’s husband.
Reference:
Ext.A3
Document Type:
Passport
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Identity proof of the petitioner’s husband.
Reference:
Ext.A4
Document Type:
Aadhar Card
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Identity proof of the petitioner and her husband.
Reference:
Ext.A5, Ext.A6
Document Type:
Ration Card
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Identity proof related to the petitioner’s husband.
Reference:
Ext.A7
Document Type:
Clinical Report
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Medical details regarding the petitioner’s husband.
Reference:
Ext.A8
Document Type:
Order Copy
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
A copy of an order related to another shop room eviction filed by the petitioner.
Reference:
Ext.A9
Document Type:
Photograph
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Image evidence of the shop room in question.
Reference:
Ext.A10
Document Type:
Deposition
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
Deposition of witness from a related case showing the context of the dispute.
Reference:
Ext.B1
Document Type:
Receipt
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
Receipt evidence proving the business transactions by the respondent.
Reference:
Ext.B1(a), Ext.B2, Ext.B3
Document Type:
Invoice Receipt Book
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
Documentation of business conducted by the respondent.
Reference:
Ext.B4 to Ext.B13
Document Type:
Commission Report
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
Report confirming the unavailability of vacant rooms for relocation.
Reference:
Ext.B14
Document Type:
Deposition
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
Deposition of witness from a related case regarding the same bonafide requirement issue.
Reference:
Ext.B15
Case Classification
Case Type
Rent Control Petition
Category
Eviction and Rent Control
District
Kozhikode
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court 1 Kozhikode
Common Reasons
Bonafide requirement for business
Case Code
Case between Ponmanichintakath Sulaikha vs V. Hassan Koya, P. Aboobacker regarding eviction of tenants
Case Code Year
Case between Ponmanichintakath Sulaikha vs V. Hassan Koya, P. Aboobacker regarding eviction of tenants