HARIDAS vs Premraj Advocate - V.G.SUBASHCHANDRA BABU, Sajith Kumar — 100165/2024
Case under Building (Lease and Rent Control)amendment Act, 1974 Section 18. Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED on 07th April 2026.
RCA - CIVIL APPEAL (RENT CONTROL)
CNR: KLTR110021752024
e-Filing Number
22-10-2024
Filing Number
101856/2024
Filing Date
23-Oct-2024
Registration No
100165/2024
Registration Date
23-Oct-2024
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
07-Apr-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--DISMISSED
Last updated 15-Jun-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.HARIDAS
Adv. ROBINS K CHUNKATH, K.GOPAKUMAR, Kurian Chungath
Respondent(s)
-
1.Premraj Advocate - V.G.SUBASHCHANDRA BABU, Sajith Kumar
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
07-Apr-2026
JudgementView PDF
Case Summary: RCA 165/2024 Court Decision: The Rent Control Appellate Authority dismissed Haridas's (tenant) appeal and upheld the lower court's eviction order. Premraj (landlord) is entitled to evict the tenant from the rented ground floor room under sections 11(3) and 11(8) of the Kerala Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965. Key Reasoning: The court found that Premraj, an Ayurvedic doctor operating a pharmacy in an adjoining 550 sq.ft. room, demonstrated genuine bona fide need for additional space. The advocate commissioner's inspection confirmed insufficient space, with patients standing outside. The tenant failed to prove the business income was his sole livelihood or that no alternative commercial spaces existed locally. The court rejected the tenant's hardship arguments, confirming eviction within two months. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
07-Apr-2026
Disposed
Additional Dist and Session Judge/MACT
-
06-Apr-2026
Order/ Judgement
Additional Dist and Session Judge/MACT
-
04-Apr-2026
Order/ Judgement
Additional Dist and Session Judge/MACT
-
31-Mar-2026
Order/ Judgement
Additional Dist and Session Judge/MACT
-
30-Mar-2026
Order/ Judgement
Additional Dist and Session Judge/MACT
-
28-Mar-2026
Order/ Judgement
Additional Dist and Session Judge/MACT
-
26-Mar-2026
Order/ Judgement
Additional Dist and Session Judge/MACT
-
21-Mar-2026
Order/ Judgement
Additional Dist and Session Judge/MACT
-
17-Mar-2026
Order/ Judgement
Additional Dist and Session Judge/MACT
-
16-Mar-2026
Order/ Judgement
Additional Dist and Session Judge/MACT
-
09-Mar-2026
Order/ Judgement
Additional Dist and Session Judge/MACT
-
06-Mar-2026
For Hearing
Additional Dist and Session Judge/MACT
-
26-Feb-2026
Adjourned
Additional Dist and Session Judge/MACT
-
21-Feb-2026
For Hearing
Additional Dist and Session Judge/MACT
-
10-Feb-2026
For Hearing
Additional Dist and Session Judge/MACT
-
12-Jan-2026
Await Tcr
Additional Dist and Session Judge/MACT
-
02-Dec-2025
Call on
Additional Dist and Session Judge/MACT
-
09-Oct-2025
Adjourned
Additional Dist and Session Judge/MACT
-
21-Aug-2025
For L C R
Additional Dist and Session Judge/MACT
-
20-May-2025
For L C R
Additional Dist and Session Judge/MACT
-
20-Mar-2025
For L C R
Additional Dist and Session Judge/MACT
-
17-Mar-2025
For Counter
Additional Dist and Session Judge/MACT
-
11-Feb-2025
For Counter
Additional Dist and Session Judge/MACT
-
10-Jan-2025
For Counter
Additional Dist and Session Judge/MACT
-
07-Jan-2025
For Counter
Additional Dist and Session Judge/MACT
-
26-Nov-2024
For L C R
Additional Dist and Session Judge/MACT
-
26-Oct-2024
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
23-Oct-2024
Case filed
Registration No. 100165/2024
Case Summary: RCA 165/2024 Court Decision: The Rent Control Appellate Authority dismissed Haridas's (tenant) appeal and upheld the lower court's eviction order. Premraj (landlord) is entitled to evict the tenant from the rented ground floor room under sections 11(3) and 11(8) of the Kerala Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965. Key Reasoning: The court found that Premraj, an Ayurvedic doctor operating a pharmacy in an adjoining 550 sq.ft. room, demonstrated genuine bona fide need for additional space. The advocate commissioner's inspection confirmed insufficient space, with patients standing outside. The tenant failed to prove the business income was his sole livelihood or that no alternative commercial spaces existed locally. The court rejected the tenant's hardship arguments, confirming eviction within two months. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts