SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 13700

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MR. SOUMEN SEN, CJ, MR. SYAM KUMAR V.M., J
MAMMAD HAJI – Appellant
Versus
ASHRAF – Respondent
OP (RC) NO. 263 OF 2025 | RCP NO.60 OF 2021



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: K.M. Firoz, M.S. Shajna, Jameel Ahammed M.S.
For the Respondents: P. Jeril Babu, Srinath Girish, Prasudha S.

The court allows the petitioner the opportunity to present further evidence in eviction proceedings at the discretion of the Rent Control Court.

Headnote:The judgment analyzes the Rent Control proceedings invoking bona fide eviction needs as per the Rent Control Act. The petitioner argued inability to present certain evidence due to disabilities. The court permitted an opportunity to submit additional evidence despite concluded arguments. Key issues included procedural adherence and the applicant's burden in proving bona fide requirement. The findings emphasized discretion lies with the Rent Control Court for further evidence applications. The petition is accordingly disposed of.

Table of Content
1. counsel's submissions regarding inability to present evidence. (Para 2)
2. court's reflection on prior case progress. (Para 3 , 4)
3. allowing further evidence as per rent control court's discretion. (Para 5)

Heard Mr. K. M. Firoz, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. P. Jeril Babu, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, due to circumstances beyond the petitioner’s control, sufficient materials could not be placed before the Rent Control Court to establish that the petitioner was, in fact, unable to attend the court and give evidence.

3. We have been informed that the arguments before the Rent Control Court have been concluded and the judgment has been reserved.

4. The petitioner is the applicant who instituted the proceedings for eviction on the ground of bona fide requirement for his son. It is submitted that the son, for whose benefit the bona fide need is pleaded, could not be examined as he is physically disabled. However, the submissions made from the Bar are not supported by any corroborative documents.

5. Unless the judgment is pronounced in the meantime, it shall be open to the petitioner to file an appropriate application with proper particulars and convincing materials seeking permission to adduce further evidence, upon such terms and conditions as the Rent Control Court may deem fit and proper. We make it clear that it shall be entirely within the discretion of the Rent Control Court to consider such an application, and we express no opinion in this regard.

6. The petition is accordingly disposed of.

Sd/-

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top