Valiyandiyil Sufana Sherin vs Suresh M P Advocate - K. Prabhakaran and P.V. Sijith Kumar — 300093/2023
Case under Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (Kerala) Section 11(3). Disposed: Contested--ALLOWED on 30th March 2026.
RCP - RENT CONTROL PETITION
CNR: KLKK300004772023
e-Filing Number
26-09-2023
Filing Number
480/2023
Filing Date
11-10-2023
Registration No
300093/2023
Registration Date
13-10-2023
Court
Munsiff Court, Vadakara
Judge
1-Munsiff
Decision Date
30th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--ALLOWED
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Valiyandiyil Sufana Sherin
Adv. RAJAN I
Respondent(s)
Suresh M P Advocate - K. Prabhakaran and P.V. Sijith Kumar
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Munsiff
Disposed
Order/ Judgement
For further hearing
For further hearing
For further hearing
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 30-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 26-03-2026 | Order/ Judgement |
| 16-03-2026 | For further hearing |
| 26-02-2026 | For further hearing |
| 09-02-2026 | For further hearing |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary of Case 300093/2023 The Rent Controller, Vatakara granted the petitioner's eviction petition under Section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965. The court found that the petitioner (property owner) demonstrated a genuine, bonafide need to operate a medical shop and examination center in the rented premises, supported by her pharmacy qualifications and financial readiness. The court rejected the respondent-tenant's defenses, finding insufficient evidence that alternative suitable commercial spaces existed in the locality or that the tenant's livelihood depended solely on the current premises. The respondent was directed to vacate within one month. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
Summary of Case 300093/2023 The Rent Controller, Vatakara granted the petitioner's eviction petition under Section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965. The court found that the petitioner (property owner) demonstrated a genuine, bonafide need to operate a medical shop and examination center in the rented premises, supported by her pharmacy qualifications and financial readiness. The court rejected the respondent-tenant's defenses, finding insufficient evidence that alternative suitable commercial spaces existed in the locality or that the tenant's livelihood depended solely on the current premises. The respondent was directed to vacate within one month. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts