Shakira Banu vs Sukumaran — 2/2025

Case under The Tamil Nadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants Act, 2017 Section 21(2)(a). Status: IA Pending. Next hearing: 23rd June 2026.

IA Pending Next hearing 23-Jun-2026 this date has passed

RLTOP - Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlord and Tenant Original Petition

CNR: TNTS110016532025

e-Filing Number

18-06-2025

Filing Number

69/2025

Filing Date

23-Jun-2025

Registration No

2/2025

Registration Date

29-Jul-2025

Court

District Munsif Court, Shengottah

Judge

1-District Munsif

Last updated 20-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

The Tamil Nadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants Act, 2017 Section 21(2)(a)

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Shakira Banu

    Adv. R STEPHEN B A B L

  2. 2.Syed Meeran

    Adv. R STEPHEN B A B L

  3. 3.Ameersha

    Adv. R STEPHEN B A B L

  4. 4.Mohideen Fathima

    Adv. R STEPHEN B A B L

  5. 5.Yasar Arafath

    Adv. R STEPHEN B A B L

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Sukumaran

Case History

  1. 23-Jun-2026

    Next hearingPending

  2. 16-Jun-2026

    IA Pending

    District Munsif

  3. 15-Jun-2026

    IA Pending

    District Munsif

  4. 09-Jun-2026

    IA Pending

    District Munsif

  5. 06-Jun-2026

    IA Pending

    District Munsif

  6. 01-Jun-2026

    IA Pending

    District Munsif

  7. 29-Apr-2026

    Evidence

    District Munsif

  8. 24-Apr-2026

    Evidence

    District Munsif

  9. 20-Apr-2026

    Evidence

    District Munsif

  10. 17-Apr-2026

    Evidence

    District Munsif

  11. 16-Apr-2026

    Copy of DepositionView PDF

    Case Summary: RLTOP No. 2/2025 Date: 16.04.2026 This is a property dispute case involving Shakira Banu (petitioner/witness) against Sukumaran (respondent) regarding land in survey number 13/3. The court examined cross-examination testimony regarding property ownership, sales documents, and a snack shop operated on the disputed premises. The court noted inconsistencies in the petitioner's claims about property boundaries, the respondent's occupancy period (claiming 2020 but allegedly operating since 2002), and rental payment disputes. The court rejected several of the petitioner's contentions, including arguments that the property was not properly identified and that a verbal agreement existed. The order upholds documentary evidence (Exhibits 1 & 2) as valid proof of property rights in survey number 13/3, dismissing the petitioner's challenge to their validity. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  12. 16-Apr-2026

    Evidence

    District Munsif

  13. 11-Apr-2026

    Evidence

    District Munsif

  14. 07-Apr-2026

    Copy of DepositionView PDF

  15. 07-Apr-2026

    Evidence

    District Munsif

  16. 23-Mar-2026

    Appearance

    District Munsif

  17. 18-Mar-2026

    Enquiry

    District Munsif

  18. 16-Mar-2026

    Enquiry

    District Munsif

  19. 10-Mar-2026

    Enquiry

    District Munsif

  20. 07-Mar-2026

    Enquiry

    District Munsif

  21. 26-Feb-2026

    Enquiry

    District Munsif

  22. 11-Feb-2026

    Enquiry

  23. 22-Jan-2026

    Enquiry

  24. 11-Dec-2025

    Enquiry

  25. 19-Nov-2025

    Enquiry

  26. 05-Nov-2025

    Counter

  27. 08-Oct-2025

    Counter

  28. 17-Sep-2025

    Counter

  29. 28-Aug-2025

    Counter

  30. 29-Jul-2025

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  31. 23-Jun-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. 2/2025

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: RLTOP No. 2/2025 Date: 16.04.2026 This is a property dispute case involving Shakira Banu (petitioner/witness) against Sukumaran (respondent) regarding land in survey number 13/3. The court examined cross-examination testimony regarding property ownership, sales documents, and a snack shop operated on the disputed premises. The court noted inconsistencies in the petitioner's claims about property boundaries, the respondent's occupancy period (claiming 2020 but allegedly operating since 2002), and rental payment disputes. The court rejected several of the petitioner's contentions, including arguments that the property was not properly identified and that a verbal agreement existed. The order upholds documentary evidence (Exhibits 1 & 2) as valid proof of property rights in survey number 13/3, dismissing the petitioner's challenge to their validity. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case