Jameela vs ASKER KUNHIMOOSA — 25/2026
Case under Buildings (lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (kerala) Section section 18(1)(b). Status: For Steps. Next hearing: 10th July 2026.
RCA - CIVIL APPEAL (RENT CONTROL)
CNR: KLKN010006312026
Next Hearing
10th July 2026
Filing Number
25/2026
Filing Date
23-01-2026
Registration No
25/2026
Registration Date
10-02-2026
Court
District Court and Sessions Court / Rent Control Appellate Authority, Thalassery
Judge
3-2nd Additional District Judge
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Jameela
Adv. V.P. MAHAMMOOD
SHAHIN
Adv. V.P. MAHAMMOOD,GEETHA U
SHABEEB
Adv. V.P. MAHAMMOOD,GEETHA U
SHABINA
Adv. V.P. MAHAMMOOD,GEETHA U
Respondent(s)
ASKER KUNHIMOOSA
SAKKIR HUSSAIN
SHAHANA
Hearing History
Judge: 3-2nd Additional District Judge
For Steps
For Steps
Orders in IA
Issue notice
Issue notice
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 30-05-2026 | For Steps |
| 18-03-2026 | For Steps |
| 13-03-2026 | Orders in IA |
| 25-02-2026 | Issue notice |
| 13-02-2026 | Issue notice |
Interim Orders
Case 25/2026 Summary: The Rent Control Appellate Authority granted a stay of execution on the eviction order dated 22/11/2025 passed by the trial court until disposal of the appeal. The appellants (Jameela, Shahin, and Shabeeb) challenged the trial court's fair rent determination of Rs. 40,000/month from April 5, 2023, arguing the eviction order violated statute and legal principles. The court found the appellants' serious challenge to the fair rent determination warranted staying execution without requiring deposit of arrears, as requiring deposit before finality would be unjust. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case 25/2026 Summary: The Rent Control Appellate Authority granted a stay of execution on the eviction order dated 22/11/2025 passed by the trial court until disposal of the appeal. The appellants (Jameela, Shahin, and Shabeeb) challenged the trial court's fair rent determination of Rs. 40,000/month from April 5, 2023, arguing the eviction order violated statute and legal principles. The court found the appellants' serious challenge to the fair rent determination warranted staying execution without requiring deposit of arrears, as requiring deposit before finality would be unjust. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts