Haridas vs Madhusoodhanan Advocate - P.MADHUSUDANA MENON — 100015/2025
Case under Building (Lease and Rent Control )Act, 1959 Section 18(1)(b). Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED WITH COST on 04th April 2026.
RCA - CIVIL APPEAL (RENT CONTROL)
CNR: KLTR110002552025
e-Filing Number
06-02-2025
Filing Number
100190/2025
Filing Date
06-02-2025
Registration No
100015/2025
Registration Date
07-02-2025
Court
Additional District And Sessions Court Motor Accident Claims Tribunal / Rent Control Appellate Authority, Irinjalakuda
Judge
1-Additional Dist and Session Judge/MACT
Decision Date
04th April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--DISMISSED WITH COST
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Haridas
Adv. JAGADEESH K
Respondent(s)
Madhusoodhanan Advocate - P.MADHUSUDANA MENON
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Additional Dist and Session Judge/MACT
Disposed
Order/ Judgement
Order/ Judgement
Order/ Judgement
Order/ Judgement
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 04-04-2026 | Disposed |
| 31-03-2026 | Order/ Judgement |
| 30-03-2026 | Order/ Judgement |
| 28-03-2026 | Order/ Judgement |
| 26-03-2026 | Order/ Judgement |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: RCA No. 15/2025 The Rent Control Appellate Authority dismissed tenant Haridas's appeal challenging the maintainability of an eviction petition. The court rejected Haridas's claim of permanent tenancy, finding it lacked bona fide basis. Although Haridas argued he paid ₹1 lakh to the landlord's father in 1985 in exchange for permanent tenancy at nominal rent (₹600/month), the court found the unregistered lease deed contained no permanent tenancy provisions, his oral agreement claims were contradicted by his regular rent payments under standard lease terms, and the claim appeared designed to protract proceedings rather than reflect genuine rights. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
Order
Case Summary: RCA No. 15/2025 The Rent Control Appellate Authority dismissed tenant Haridas's appeal challenging the maintainability of an eviction petition. The court rejected Haridas's claim of permanent tenancy, finding it lacked bona fide basis. Although Haridas argued he paid ₹1 lakh to the landlord's father in 1985 in exchange for permanent tenancy at nominal rent (₹600/month), the court found the unregistered lease deed contained no permanent tenancy provisions, his oral agreement claims were contradicted by his regular rent payments under standard lease terms, and the claim appeared designed to protract proceedings rather than reflect genuine rights. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts