VALIYA PUTHIYAKATH SUBAIDA vs PALLIKKACHALIL MUHSIN — 127/2024
Case under Buildings (lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (kerala) Section 11(3). Disposed: Contested--ALLOWED on 25th March 2026.
RCP - RENT CONTROL PETITION
CNR: KLKN110007812024
e-Filing Number
01-08-2024
Filing Number
965/2024
Filing Date
07-08-2024
Registration No
127/2024
Registration Date
07-08-2024
Court
Principal Munsiffs Court, Kannur
Judge
3-Prl. Munsiff/jfcm4, Kannur
Decision Date
25th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--ALLOWED
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
VALIYA PUTHIYAKATH SUBAIDA
Adv. Balaram KK
A P RIZWANA
Adv. Balaram KK
Respondent(s)
PALLIKKACHALIL MUHSIN
Hearing History
Judge: 3-Prl. Munsiff/jfcm4, Kannur
Disposed
Order/ Judgement
FOR HEARING
for evidence
For evidence
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 25-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 23-03-2026 | Order/ Judgement |
| 19-03-2026 | FOR HEARING |
| 16-03-2026 | for evidence |
| 12-03-2026 | For evidence |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: RCP 127/2024 Court Decision: The Rent Control Court, Kannur granted the eviction petition filed by Subaida and A P Rizwana against tenant Muhsin under the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. The court found the petitioners' bonafide need to occupy their own building genuine, as they currently live in an inadequate 3-cent government property and the daughter requires better accommodation after marriage. The court rejected the tenant's defense that alternative buildings existed, as he provided no documentary evidence, and ordered the tenant to vacate within one month while bearing litigation costs. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
Case Summary: RCP 127/2024 Court Decision: The Rent Control Court, Kannur granted the eviction petition filed by Subaida and A P Rizwana against tenant Muhsin under the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. The court found the petitioners' bonafide need to occupy their own building genuine, as they currently live in an inadequate 3-cent government property and the daughter requires better accommodation after marriage. The court rejected the tenant's defense that alternative buildings existed, as he provided no documentary evidence, and ordered the tenant to vacate within one month while bearing litigation costs. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts