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

Case disposed

e-Filing Number

22-10-2024

Filing Number

101856/2024

Filing Date

23-10-2024

Registration No

100165/2024

Registration Date

23-10-2024

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

07th April 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DISMISSED

Acts & Sections

BUILDING (LEASE AND RENT CONTROL)AMENDMENT ACT, 1974 Section 18
IA/1/2026 Classification : Carbon Copy Application Section Premraj

Petitioner(s)

HARIDAS

Adv. ROBINS K CHUNKATH, K.GOPAKUMAR, Kurian Chungath

Respondent(s)

Premraj Advocate - V.G.SUBASHCHANDRA BABU, Sajith Kumar

Hearing History

Judge: 1-Additional Dist and Session Judge/MACT

07-04-2026

Disposed

06-04-2026

Order/ Judgement

04-04-2026

Order/ Judgement

31-03-2026

Order/ Judgement

30-03-2026

Order/ Judgement

Final Orders / Judgements

07-04-2026
Judgement

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.

casestatus.in Summary

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.

Browse Related Cases

More from this court

Additional District And Sessions Court Motor Accident Claims Tribunal / Rent Control Appellate Authority, Irinjalakuda All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case