Rajeena vs Therasa Jose Advocate - Suraj Krishna B.S — 300007/2022
Case under Lease and Rent Control Act 1965 Section 11. Status: For Hearing. Next hearing: 18th June 2026.
RCP - RENT CONTROL PETITION
CNR: KLER510004152022
Next Hearing
18th June 2026
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
524/2022
Filing Date
18-07-2022
Registration No
300007/2022
Registration Date
18-07-2022
Court
Munsiff Court, Muvattupuzha
Judge
1-Munsiff
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Rajeena
Adv. Sherman A.George
Respondent(s)
Therasa Jose Advocate - Suraj Krishna B.S
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Munsiff
For Hearing
For hearing on IA
For Hearing
For Hearing
For Hearing
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 07-04-2026 | For Hearing | |
| 28-03-2026 | For hearing on IA | |
| 21-03-2026 | For Hearing | |
| 17-03-2026 | For Hearing | |
| 09-03-2026 | For Hearing |
Interim Orders
Summary: The petition to amend the objection in an eviction case (R.C.P. 7/2022) was allowed with conditions. The petitioner, Theresa Jose, sought to introduce a "permanent licensee" defense to counter the landlord's eviction petition based on non-payment of rent. Although the court found such amendments permissible under CPC principles (citing *Benjeena P. J. v. C. P. Pappachan*), it imposed a penal cost of ₹4,000 to be paid within 10 days, finding that the petitioner filed this amendment belatedly with apparent intent to delay proceedings. The case was called for further hearing on 20.11.2025. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary: The petition to amend the objection in an eviction case (R.C.P. 7/2022) was allowed with conditions. The petitioner, Theresa Jose, sought to introduce a "permanent licensee" defense to counter the landlord's eviction petition based on non-payment of rent. Although the court found such amendments permissible under CPC principles (citing *Benjeena P. J. v. C. P. Pappachan*), it imposed a penal cost of ₹4,000 to be paid within 10 days, finding that the petitioner filed this amendment belatedly with apparent intent to delay proceedings. The case was called for further hearing on 20.11.2025. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts