K.S.Sushamadevi vs Babu Advocate - R.Aravindakshan — 100001/2014
Case under Lease and Rent Control Act 1965 Section S.11(8). Status: For evidence. Next hearing: 04th June 2026.
RCP - RENT CONTROL PETITION
CNR: KLAL220003402014
Next Hearing
04th June 2026
Filing Number
100001/2014
Filing Date
25-01-2014
Registration No
100001/2014
Registration Date
25-01-2014
Court
Munsiff Court, Haripad
Judge
1-Munsiff, Haripad
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
K.S.Sushamadevi
Adv. K.Raveendran
Jasin Chandran
Adv. -do-
Janeesha Chandran
Adv. -do-
Jagadheesh Chandran
Adv. -do-
Respondent(s)
Babu Advocate - R.Aravindakshan
Baby Varghese
Adv. -do-
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Munsiff, Haripad
For evidence
Appearance Of Parties
For evidence
For evidence
For evidence
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 18-05-2026 | For evidence |
| 08-04-2026 | Appearance Of Parties |
| 30-03-2026 | For evidence |
| 26-03-2026 | For evidence |
| 25-03-2026 | For evidence |
Interim Orders
Case Summary The Rent Control Court, Haripad allowed the eviction petition filed by the landlords (petitioners) under Section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965. The court found that the petitioners established a bonafide need to evict the tenant-respondents from the shop room to start a Panchakarma Ayurveda Hospital, as the petitioner was a qualified Ayurveda medical officer with relevant expertise and project documentation. The respondents were directed to vacate within two months, with no order for costs. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary The Rent Control Court, Haripad allowed the eviction petition filed by the landlords (petitioners) under Section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965. The court found that the petitioners established a bonafide need to evict the tenant-respondents from the shop room to start a Panchakarma Ayurveda Hospital, as the petitioner was a qualified Ayurveda medical officer with relevant expertise and project documentation. The respondents were directed to vacate within two months, with no order for costs. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts