Kuruttipravan Veettil Pocker Haji vs Malliveettil Ibrahim Haji Advocate - P Divakaran — 300041/2022
Case under Lease and Rent Control Act 1965 Section 11(3). Status: For cross examination.. Next hearing: 28th March 2026.
RCP - RENT CONTROL PETITION
CNR: KLKK300002012022
Next Hearing
28th March 2026
e-Filing Number
08-04-2022
Filing Number
191/2022
Filing Date
11-04-2022
Registration No
300041/2022
Registration Date
11-04-2022
Court
Munsiff Court, Vadakara
Judge
1-Munsiff
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Kuruttipravan Veettil Pocker Haji
Adv. ANIL RAJ K K
Respondent(s)
Malliveettil Ibrahim Haji Advocate - P Divakaran
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Munsiff
For cross examination.
For cross examination.
For cross examination.
For cross examination.
Listed to
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 24-03-2026 | For cross examination. |
| 16-03-2026 | For cross examination. |
| 07-03-2026 | For cross examination. |
| 05-03-2026 | For cross examination. |
| 23-02-2026 | Listed to |
Interim Orders
Summary Both rent control petitions (RCP 41/2022 and RCP 107/2022) filed by the petitioner against the respondent were allowed. An eviction order was passed under Sections 11(2)(b), 11(4)(i), and 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965. The respondent was directed to vacate the leased shop room and hand it over to the petitioner within one month, with the petitioner also awarded costs. The court found the respondent had defaulted on rent since January 2022, unlawfully sublet the premises, and accepted the petitioner's bona fide need for the property for his daughter's bakery business. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary Both rent control petitions (RCP 41/2022 and RCP 107/2022) filed by the petitioner against the respondent were allowed. An eviction order was passed under Sections 11(2)(b), 11(4)(i), and 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965. The respondent was directed to vacate the leased shop room and hand it over to the petitioner within one month, with the petitioner also awarded costs. The court found the respondent had defaulted on rent since January 2022, unlawfully sublet the premises, and accepted the petitioner's bona fide need for the property for his daughter's bakery business. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts