Mathilakath veetil Nasim vs Poonthayath Babu — 100025/2020

Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section LRCAct. Disposed: Contested--ALLOWED IN PART on 26th March 2026.

Case disposed

RCP - RENT CONTROL PETITION

CNR: KLTR170006012020

Filing Number

100025/2020

Filing Date

07-Mar-2020

Registration No

100025/2020

Registration Date

07-Mar-2020

Court

Munsiff Court, Chavakkad

Judge

1-Munsiff Chavakkad

Decision Date

26-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--ALLOWED IN PART

Last updated 15-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Code of Civil Procedure Section LRCAct
Ia/9/2025 Classification : Application to Reopen Evidence Section Poonthayath BabuMathilakath veetil Nasim

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Mathilakath veetil Nasim

    Adv. C. Rajagopalan

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Poonthayath Babu

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 26-Mar-2026

    OrderView PDF

    Case Summary: Mathilakath veetil Nasim v. Poonthayath Babu (RCP 25/2020) Court Decision: The Rent Control Court of Chavakkad partially allowed the petitioner's petition for fair rent fixation. The court fixed fair rent at Rs.4,500 per month (effective March 7, 2020) instead of the claimed Rs.16,000, with 10% enhancement every three years and costs awarded to the petitioner. Key Reasoning: The court rejected the petitioner's claim that prior rent agreement terms precluded fair rent fixation, citing Kerala High Court precedent. While finding the locality commercially important, the court found insufficient evidence of proper maintenance and structural quality of the 160 sq.ft. room to justify the requested amount, relying instead on comparable rental rates in the vicinity. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 26-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Munsiff Chavakkad

  4. 16-Mar-2026

    Order/ Judgement

    Munsiff Chavakkad

  5. 04-Mar-2026

    For Hearing

    Munsiff Chavakkad

  6. 21-Feb-2026

    For Hearing

    Munsiff Chavakkad

  7. 11-Feb-2026

    For Hearing

    Munsiff Chavakkad

  8. 03-Feb-2026

    For Hearing

    Munsiff Chavakkad

  9. 23-Jan-2026

    For Hearing

    Munsiff Chavakkad

  10. 16-Jan-2026

    For Hearing

    Munsiff Chavakkad

  11. 09-Jan-2026

    For Hearing

    Munsiff Chavakkad

  12. 17-Dec-2025

    For Hearing

    Munsiff Chavakkad

  13. 04-Dec-2025

    For Hearing

    Munsiff Chavakkad

  14. 22-Nov-2025

    For Hearing

    Munsiff Chavakkad

  15. 10-Nov-2025

    For Hearing

    Munsiff Chavakkad

  16. 05-Nov-2025

    OrderView PDF

  17. 05-Nov-2025

    Issue Summons

    Munsiff Chavakkad

  18. 30-Oct-2025

    Orders in IA

    Munsiff Chavakkad

  19. 21-Oct-2025

    Call with IA

    Munsiff Chavakkad

  20. 15-Oct-2025

    Call with IA

    Munsiff Chavakkad

  21. 27-Sep-2025

    No sitting notified

    Munsiff Chavakkad

  22. 19-Sep-2025

    Call with IA

    Munsiff Chavakkad

  23. 15-Sep-2025

    OrderView PDF

  24. 15-Sep-2025

    For Hearing

    Munsiff Chavakkad

  25. 08-Sep-2025

    Orders in IA

    Munsiff Chavakkad

  26. 16-Aug-2025

    Adjourned

    Munsiff Chavakkad

  27. 07-Aug-2025

    Call with IA

    Munsiff Chavakkad

  28. 25-Jul-2025

    Further evidence

    Munsiff Chavakkad

  29. 18-Jul-2025

    Further evidence

    Munsiff Chavakkad

  30. 10-Jul-2025

    for evidence.

    Munsiff Chavakkad

  31. 05-Jul-2025

    for evidence.

    Munsiff Chavakkad

  32. 02-Jul-2025

    for evidence.

    Munsiff Chavakkad

  33. 30-Jun-2025

    for evidence.

    Munsiff Chavakkad

  34. 24-May-2025

    For commission report

    Munsiff Chavakkad

  35. 12-Mar-2025

    Plaintiff/Petitioner Evidence

    Munsiff Chavakkad

  36. 30-Jan-2025

    For Counter

    Munsiff Chavakkad

  37. 16-Dec-2024

    For Counter

    Munsiff Chavakkad

  38. 21-Nov-2024

    For Counter

    Munsiff Chavakkad

  39. 24-Oct-2024

    For Counter

    Munsiff Chavakkad

  40. 13-Sep-2024

    carry out impleadment

    Munsiff Chavakkad

  41. 09-Sep-2024

    Call with IA

    Munsiff Chavakkad

  42. 12-Aug-2024

    Plaintiff/Petitioner Evidence

    Munsiff Chavakkad

  43. 04-Jul-2024

    For Steps

    Munsiff Chavakkad

  44. 28-May-2024

    Referred to Mediator

    Munsiff Chavakkad

  45. 20-Mar-2024

    Appearance Of Parties

    Munsiff Chavakkad

  46. 14-Feb-2024

    For Steps

    Munsiff Chavakkad

  47. 08-Jan-2024

    For Steps

    Munsiff Chavakkad

  48. 01-Jan-2024

    For commission report

    Munsiff Chavakkad

  49. 05-Dec-2023

    For commission report

    Munsiff Chavakkad

  50. 25-Oct-2023

    For commission report

    Munsiff Chavakkad

  51. 04-Sep-2023

    For commission report

    Munsiff Chavakkad

  52. 29-May-2023

    For Steps

    Munsiff Chavakkad

  53. 25-Jan-2023

    For Steps

    Munsiff Chavakkad

  54. 28-Sep-2022

    For Steps

    Munsiff Chavakkad

  55. 25-Jun-2022

    For Steps

    Munsiff Chavakkad

  56. 25-Feb-2022

    For Counter

    Munsiff Chavakkad

  57. 15-Nov-2021

    For Counter

    Munsiff Chavakkad

  58. 10-Aug-2021

    Call with IA

    Munsiff Chavakkad

  59. 20-Feb-2021

    Call with IA

    Munsiff Chavakkad

  60. 09-Feb-2021

    Plaintiff/Petitioner Evidence

    Munsiff Chavakkad

  61. 20-Nov-2020

    Adjourned

    Munsiff Chavakkad

  62. 08-Sep-2020

    Adjourned

    Munsiff Chavakkad

  63. 12-Jun-2020

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  64. 07-Mar-2020

    Case filed

    Registration No. 100025/2020

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: Mathilakath veetil Nasim v. Poonthayath Babu (RCP 25/2020) Court Decision: The Rent Control Court of Chavakkad partially allowed the petitioner's petition for fair rent fixation. The court fixed fair rent at Rs.4,500 per month (effective March 7, 2020) instead of the claimed Rs.16,000, with 10% enhancement every three years and costs awarded to the petitioner. Key Reasoning: The court rejected the petitioner's claim that prior rent agreement terms precluded fair rent fixation, citing Kerala High Court precedent. While finding the locality commercially important, the court found insufficient evidence of proper maintenance and structural quality of the 160 sq.ft. room to justify the requested amount, relying instead on comparable rental rates in the vicinity. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case