Skip to main content
Niyamam AI Niyamam AI

Main navigation

  • Home
  • Lawyer Login
  • Lawyer Registration
  • About us
  • Contact
RP.No.586/2025

Case between Roy Emerson Ivan et al vs Suma S regarding review of Rent Control Petition

Court
Rent Control Court
Judge
Smt.Salini.B
Order Date
2025-11-03
Duration
Case Code No.
586
Case Closed

Judgement document from eCourt website

Judgment Document
Save Case Find Similar Cases

Case Summary

This case involves a review petition filed by Suma S against the order in a Rent Control Petition for eviction from a scheduled building. The original petitioner, Roy Emerson Ivan, and his wife contest the review on the grounds of maintainability and lack of proper procedure.

Judgment Outcome

Plaintiff Won
Interim Order
The court allowed the review petition, stating that the original petitioner was not afforded an opportunity to contest the proceedings. Costs were awarded to be paid by the petitioner.
Judgment Favored
Plaintiff
Relief Granted
Order allowed on costs of Rs.500/- to be paid by the petitioner to the respondents within seven days.
Case Type
Rent Control Proceeding
Final Judgment
No
The court allowed the review petition, stating that the original petitioner was not afforded an opportunity to contest the proceedings. Costs were awarded to be paid by the petitioner.
Why Plaintiff Won:
The court found that the petitioner was not sufficiently informed to contest the Rent Control Petition.
Losing Side's Weaknesses:
The court found that the petitioner was not sufficiently informed to contest the Rent Control Petition.
Supporting Evidence
The reason stated by the petitioner that the fact that the petition stands posted for filing objection and hearing was not intimated to the petitioner by the learned counsel concerned which prevented the petitioner from filing objection seems sustainable and the petition is liable to be allowed.

Judgment Evidence:

In the result, petition is allowed on costs of Rs.500/- to be paid by the petitioner to the respondents/original petitioners within seven days from the date of the order.

Parties Involved

Parties

Party Role
Plaintiff
Party Name
Roy Emerson Ivan
Relation
S/o
Party Role
Plaintiff
Party Name
Margaret Roy
Relation
W/o
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
Suma S
Relation
Represented by
Plaintiffs Documents
Defendants Documents

Advocates

Party Role
Defendant
Advocate Name
Sri.Bhagavath Singh C.S
Appearance Type
Main Counsel
Party Role
Defendant
Advocate Name
Smt.Arya.P
Appearance Type
Assisting Counsel
Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
Sri. N.S.Sabu
Appearance Type
Main Counsel

Reliefs

Relief Type: Other
Outcome: Granted
Description:
The petition is allowed on costs of Rs.500/- to be paid by the petitioner to the respondents/original petitioners within seven days from the date of the order.
Evidence:
In the result, petition is allowed on costs of Rs.500/- to be paid by the petitioner to the respondents/original petitioners within seven days from the date of the order.

Documents & Evidence

Case Classification

Case Type
Rent Control Proceeding
Category
Other Civil Cases
District
Thiruvananthapuram
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court Thiruvananthapuram
Common Reasons
Case Code
RP.NO.
Case Code Year
2025

Quick Facts

Location
Thiruvananthapuram
District
Thiruvananthapuram
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court Thiruvananthapuram
Case Filed
Case Closed
From
Sat, 11/01/2025 - 12:00
To
Sun, 11/30/2025 - 12:00
Outcome Confidence
85%

Involved Entities

Similar Cases

Case between Kerala Gramin Bank vs Lekha A et al regarding petition dismissal
COURT OF PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF
Unknown Defendant Won
Case between Kerala Gramin Bank vs Kunjumon.T regarding restoration of petitions
Principal Munsiff Court
Restoration Petition Defendant Won
Case between Vinod Kumar et al vs Sainudeen regarding review petition
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF
Review Petition Defendant Won
Case between Soumya.C.S vs S.Prasanna Babu regarding rent control matters.
Court of Rent Control
Rent Control Petition Plaintiff Won
Case between Mohanan vs Thomas Mathew et al regarding a petition dismissed for default.
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF
unknown Defendant Won