K Abdull Rahiman Haji vs T.K.Gireesan Advocate - K.Vijayakumar, Anusha.K, K.Vijayakumar, Anusha.K, K.Vijayakumar, Anusha.KMithra GR,, K.Vijayakumar, Anusha.KMithra GR,ATHIRA T V,, K.Vijayakumar, Anusha.KMithra GR,ATHIRA T V,SREELAKSHMI SAHAJAN, — 29/2023
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 11(i),11(3),11(4)(i). Disposed: Uncontested--ALLOWED on 13th March 2026.
RCP - RENT CONTROL PETITION
CNR: KLKN200004822023
e-Filing Number
07-09-2023
Filing Number
459/2023
Filing Date
11-09-2023
Registration No
29/2023
Registration Date
06-11-2023
Court
Munsiff Court, Payyannur
Judge
2-Munsiff
Decision Date
13th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Uncontested--ALLOWED
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
K Abdull Rahiman Haji
Adv. MAHESH V RAMAKRISHNAN
Respondent(s)
T.K.Gireesan Advocate - K.Vijayakumar, Anusha.K, K.Vijayakumar, Anusha.K, K.Vijayakumar, Anusha.KMithra GR,, K.Vijayakumar, Anusha.KMithra GR,ATHIRA T V,, K.Vijayakumar, Anusha.KMithra GR,ATHIRA T V,SREELAKSHMI SAHAJAN,
Thekkumkara veetil T.Santhosh
Adv. K.Vijayakumar, Anusha.K,Vijayakumar Mithra GR ATHIRA T V SREELAKSHMI SAHAJAN
Hearing History
Judge: 2-Munsiff
Disposed
FOR HEARING
Listed to
Disposed
Call on
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 13-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 12-03-2026 | FOR HEARING |
| 28-02-2026 | Listed to |
| 28-02-2026 | Disposed |
| 17-06-2025 | Call on |
Final Orders / Judgements
The Kerala Rent Control Court (Payyannur) allowed the petitioner's petition and ordered the respondents to surrender vacant possession of a rented room within two months. The court found that the first respondent unlawfully transferred the room to the second respondent without the petitioner's consent, violating the lease agreement, and that the petitioner had genuine need for the property for his unemployed son's business. The respondents were also directed to pay the costs of proceedings to the petitioner. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
The Kerala Rent Control Court (Payyannur) allowed the petitioner's petition and ordered the respondents to surrender vacant possession of a rented room within two months. The court found that the first respondent unlawfully transferred the room to the second respondent without the petitioner's consent, violating the lease agreement, and that the petitioner had genuine need for the property for his unemployed son's business. The respondents were also directed to pay the costs of proceedings to the petitioner. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts