Shabab vs Renuka Nithyanandhan Advocate - Rajesh v Nair — 300088/2022
Case under Building (Lease and Rent Control)amendment Act, 1961 Section 11(3). Status: For further hearing. Next hearing: 28th March 2026.
RCP - RENT CONTROL PETITION
CNR: KLKK300004222022
Next Hearing
28th March 2026
e-Filing Number
14-09-2022
Filing Number
409/2022
Filing Date
17-09-2022
Registration No
300088/2022
Registration Date
17-09-2022
Court
Munsiff Court, Vadakara
Judge
1-Munsiff
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Shabab
Adv. SIJITH KUMAR P V
Asharaf Haji
Adv. SIJITH KUMAR P V
Anas
Adv. SIJITH KUMAR P V
Aboobacker Haji
Adv. SIJITH KUMAR P V
Firosudheen
Adv. SIJITH KUMAR P V
Sooppy
Adv. SIJITH KUMAR P V
Abdulla Haji
Adv. SIJITH KUMAR P V
Respondent(s)
Renuka Nithyanandhan Advocate - Rajesh v Nair
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Munsiff
For further hearing
Judge on leave / duty
For further hearing
For further hearing
For further hearing
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 07-03-2026 | For further hearing |
| 27-02-2026 | Judge on leave / duty |
| 13-02-2026 | For further hearing |
| 30-01-2026 | For further hearing |
| 16-01-2026 | For further hearing |
Interim Orders
Summary: The Rent Controller, Vatakara allowed the petition filed under Section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965. An eviction order was passed directing the respondent to vacate the leased shop room and hand it over to the petitioners within one month from the date of the order. The petitioners were also awarded costs of the petition, as their bonafide need to use the property for starting a furniture business remained unchallenged since the respondent proceeded ex-parte. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary: The Rent Controller, Vatakara allowed the petition filed under Section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965. An eviction order was passed directing the respondent to vacate the leased shop room and hand it over to the petitioners within one month from the date of the order. The petitioners were also awarded costs of the petition, as their bonafide need to use the property for starting a furniture business remained unchallenged since the respondent proceeded ex-parte. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts