Case Summary
Petitioners seek eviction of the respondent from a building due to bonafide need for conducting a hardware and paints business, while alleging respondent's misuse diminishing the building's value.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Plaintiff
Relief Granted
Eviction to obtain vacant possession of the building
Case Type
Eviction Petition - Rent Control
Final Judgment
No
Why Plaintiff Won:
Need for conducting hardware and paints business and misuse by the respondent diminishing building value.
Need for conducting hardware and paints business and misuse by the respondent diminishing building value.
Judgment Evidence:
In the result, the petition is allowed under section 11(3) 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 building within two months from today. b) The petitioner is entitled to realise the cost of the petition from the respondent.
Parties Involved
Plaintiffs
Mohamed Rafi (44 years)
Pachattiri amsom Pariyapuram desom, Tirur Taluk
Rosna (30 years)
Pachattiri amsom Pariyapuram desom, Tirur Taluk
Fathima Bincy (28 years)
Pachattiri amsom Pariyapuram desom, Tirur Taluk
Iyyathkutty @ Malummu (61 years)
Pachattiri amsom Pariyapuram desom, Tirur Taluk
Defendants
Sahida @ Safira (37 years)
Vettom amsom desom, Tirur Taluk
Reliefs
Relief Type:
Eviction
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
Eviction to obtain vacant possession of the building
Evidence:
In the result, the petition is allowed under section 11(3) 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 building within two months from today. b) The petitioner is entitled to realise the cost of the petition from the respondent.
Documents & Evidence
Document Type:
Chief Affidavit
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Filed by the Chief Affidavit by PW1 Iyyathukutty @ Malummu
Reference:
Unknown