Skip to main content
Niyamam AI- Beta Niyamam AI- Beta

Main navigation

  • About us
  • Home
  • Lawyer Login
  • Lawyer Registration
  • Contact Us
RENT CONTROL PETITION NO. 22 OF 2016

Case between Fathima et al vs Hamza regarding eviction

Court
Rent Controller of Tirur
Judge
Smt. VINCY.T.V.,B.A, L.L.B.
Order Date
2017-12-20
Duration
1 year

Judgement document from eCourt website

Open judgment PDF (eCourt)
Find Similar Cases

Case Summary

Four petitioners seek eviction of the respondent due to non-payment of license fee and need to start a Mini Super Market in the property for livelihood.

Judgment Outcome

Plaintiff Won
Interim Order
Eviction granted to the petitioners as respondent failed to pay rent and obstructed proposed business plan of petitioners.
Judgment Favored
Plaintiff
Relief Granted
Eviction within one month
Case Type
Rent Control Petition
Final Judgment
No
Why Plaintiff Won:
The respondent failed to pay rent and obstructed the petitioners' plan to start a business, justifying eviction.

Judgment Evidence:

In the result, the petition is allowed under section 11(3) and 11(4)(ii) of the Kerala Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act 1965 as follows: a) The respondent is directed to put the petitioner in vacant possession of the petition schedule property within one month from today. b) The petitioner is entitled to realise the cost of the petition from the respondent.

Parties Involved

Plaintiffs

Fathima (51 years) Kundil House, Ponmundam amsom desom, Tirur Taluk Muhammed Afeekh (33 years) Kundil House, Ponmundam amsom desom, Tirur Taluk Ashikh (21 years) Kundil House, Ponmundam amsom desom, Tirur Taluk Hamna (16 years) Kundil House, Ponmundam amsom desom, Tirur Taluk

Defendants

Hamza (41 years) Thiruthiyattil House, P.O.Pookkayil Bazar, Tirur Taluk

Reliefs

Relief Type: Eviction
Outcome: Granted
Description:
Directed the respondent to vacate the property within one month
Evidence:
In the result, the petition is allowed under section 11(3) and 11(4)(ii) of the Kerala Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act 1965 as follows: a) The respondent is directed to put the petitioner in vacant possession of the petition schedule property within one month from today. b) The petitioner is entitled to realise the cost of the petition from the respondent.

Documents & Evidence

Document Type: Copy of Lawyer Notice
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Notice sent to the respondent revoking license due to non-payment
Reference:
A1
Document Type: Commission Report
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Report showing damages to property by respondent
Reference:
A5(a)
Document Type: Commission Plan
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Plan illustrating damages to property
Reference:
A5(b)

Quick Facts

Location
Tirur
Case Filed
Tue, 12/20/2016 - 12:00
Outcome Confidence
100%

Involved Entities

Private Individual

Similar Cases