Fathima Razik Kallinkal Kakkantavida @Kallinkal Kakkantavida Fathima vs Pallichal Pramod — 142/2025
Case under Buildings (lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (kerala) Section 11(2) (a) (b). Disposed: Uncontested--ALLOWED on 04th April 2026.
RCP - RENT CONTROL PETITION
CNR: KLKN120004062025
Filing Number
982/2025
Filing Date
23-09-2025
Registration No
142/2025
Registration Date
07-10-2025
Court
Additional Munsiffs Court Kannur
Judge
4-Addl. Munsiff/JFCM 5, Kannur
Decision Date
04th April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Uncontested--ALLOWED
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Fathima Razik Kallinkal Kakkantavida @Kallinkal Kakkantavida Fathima
Adv. Muhammed ameen k k
Respondent(s)
Pallichal Pramod
Hearing History
Judge: 4-Addl. Munsiff/JFCM 5, Kannur
Disposed
Order/ Judgement
FOR HEARING
FOR HEARING
FOR HEARING
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 04-04-2026 | Disposed |
| 30-03-2026 | Order/ Judgement |
| 27-03-2026 | FOR HEARING |
| 23-03-2026 | FOR HEARING |
| 13-03-2026 | FOR HEARING |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: Rent Control Petition No. 142/2025 The Rent Control Court, Kannur allowed the eviction petition filed by landlord Fathima Razik against tenant Pallichal Pramod. The court found that the respondent willfully kept rent arrears of 10 months on a property leased for an electronics repair business at Rs. 1,500/month. The petitioner established bonafide need for the building to set up an office for her son's construction business, with no alternative accommodation available. The respondent failed to appear or contest the proceedings, leaving his claims about livelihood dependency and alternative premises unproven. The court ordered the respondent to vacate within one month and pay all arrears plus court costs. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: Rent Control Petition No. 142/2025 The Rent Control Court, Kannur allowed the eviction petition filed by landlord Fathima Razik against tenant Pallichal Pramod. The court found that the respondent willfully kept rent arrears of 10 months on a property leased for an electronics repair business at Rs. 1,500/month. The petitioner established bonafide need for the building to set up an office for her son's construction business, with no alternative accommodation available. The respondent failed to appear or contest the proceedings, leaving his claims about livelihood dependency and alternative premises unproven. The court ordered the respondent to vacate within one month and pay all arrears plus court 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