{"id":107589,"date":"2008-08-25T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-08-24T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-geeta-devi-and-others-vs-smt-sushila-on-25-august-2008"},"modified":"2018-08-17T09:47:14","modified_gmt":"2018-08-17T04:17:14","slug":"smt-geeta-devi-and-others-vs-smt-sushila-on-25-august-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-geeta-devi-and-others-vs-smt-sushila-on-25-august-2008","title":{"rendered":"Smt.Geeta Devi And Others vs Smt.Sushila on 25 August, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court<\/div>\n
Smt.Geeta Devi And Others vs Smt.Sushila on 25 August, 2008<\/div>\n
C.R. No.1488 of 2008                                                   1\n\n        IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT\n                      CHANDIGARH.\n\n                                       C.R. No.1488 of 2008\n                                       Date of Decision: 25.8.2008\n\nSmt.Geeta Devi and others                                .....Petitioners\n\n                                Vs.\n\nSmt.Sushila                                              ....Respondent\n                                ....\n<\/pre>\n
CORAM :       HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA\n\n                                ****\n\nPresent :     Mr. R.S. Mittal, Sr.Advocate with Mr. Atul Gaur, Advocate\n              for the petitioners.\n<\/pre>\n
              Mr.Ashok Aggarwal, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Parminder Singh,
\n              Advocate for the respondent-caveator.\n<\/p>\n
                                …\n<\/p>\n
RAJIVE BHALLA, J<\/p>\n
              The petitioners-tenants lay challenge to the order dated<\/p>\n
14.2.2008 passed by the Appellate Authority, Bhiwani, accepting the appeal<\/p>\n
filed by the landlady, reversing the order passed by the Rent Controller,<\/p>\n
Charkhi Dadri dated 30.7.2004 and ordering their ejectment.<\/p>\n
              The respondent-landlady filed a petition for ejectment        of<\/p>\n
Krishan Patwari, the tenant, who has since passed away and is now<\/p>\n
represented by the petitioners on the grounds of non payment of rent and<\/p>\n
that    the demised premises had become unfit and unsafe for human<\/p>\n
habitation as the walls had developed cracks and water was leaking from the<\/p>\n
roof.\n<\/p>\n
              In response, the tenant did not deny the damage to the building<\/p>\n
but asserted that the damage could be repaired. The damage was attributed<\/p>\n
to the of age of the house,       floods that had inundated the house and
\n C.R. No.1488 of 2008                                                  2<\/span><\/p>\n
persistent neglect by the previous landlord and the present landlady,and as a<\/p>\n
result, the Western walls, the front portion had developed cracks and the<\/p>\n
roof and parts of the verandah walls had started leaking. The tenant<\/p>\n
therefore served a legal notice dated 9.7.1996 calling upon the landlady,<\/p>\n
to repair the tenanted premises. On her failure to do so, the tenant filed a<\/p>\n
petition under Section 12 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and<\/p>\n
Eviction) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act’) praying that the<\/p>\n
landlady be directed to carry out repairs. It was, therefore, asserted that as<\/p>\n
the tenanted premises are repairable, the ejectment petition be dismissed.<\/p>\n
After appraisal of the respective pleadings, the learned Rent Controller<\/p>\n
framed the following issues :-\n<\/p>\n
             “i). Whether the demised premises have become unfit and<\/p>\n
                  unsafe for human habitation and, therefore, respondent is<\/p>\n
                  liable to be evicted from the same ? OPP<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
             ii). Whether tender of rent made by the respondent to the<\/p>\n
                  petitioner is invalid and so respondent is liable to be<\/p>\n
                  evicted ? OPP.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             iii) Whether petitioner has no locus-standi to file the<\/p>\n
                  petition ? OPD.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             iv) Whether the petition is not maintainable ? OPR.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
             v)   Whether petition is false and frivolous and petitioner has<\/p>\n
                  not come in the Court with clean hands and petition has<\/p>\n
                  been filed in order to harass the respondent and, therefore,<\/p>\n
                  he is entitled to special costs ? OPR.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             vi) Relief.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            The issue with respect to non payment of rent was decided in
\n C.R. No.1488 of 2008                                                  3<\/span><\/p>\n
favour of the tenants, as arrears of rent were tendered.       On the issue,<\/p>\n
whether the tenanted premises were unsafe and unfit for human habitation,<\/p>\n
the learned Rent Controller held that the landlady had failed to establish the<\/p>\n
extent and nature of the damage and merely because the tenanted premises<\/p>\n
remained under water for a month or had developed cracks, it could not be<\/p>\n
held that they had become unsafe and unfit for human habitation. The<\/p>\n
ejectment petition was, therefore, dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
            The respondent-landlady filed an appeal. The Appellate<\/p>\n
Authority accepted the appeal and reversed the order passed by the Rent<\/p>\n
Controller and, therefore, ordered the tenants’ ejectment.<\/p>\n
            Counsel for the petitioners submits that the Appellate<\/p>\n
Authority, Bhiwani, committed serious errors, while reversing the order<\/p>\n
passed by the Rent Controller. The learned Rent Controller rightly held<\/p>\n
that the landlady had failed to establish, by any cogent or reliable evidence,<\/p>\n
the extent and nature of the damage caused to the tenanted premises or that<\/p>\n
the admitted damage was sufficient to hold that the building is unsafe and<\/p>\n
unfit for human habitation. The landlady merely        produced AW-1 Gian<\/p>\n
Chand, a Municipal Engineer, in support of her allegation that the building<\/p>\n
has become unsafe and unfit for human habitation. This deposition was<\/p>\n
rightly rejected by the Rent Controller, as vague and unworthy of credence<\/p>\n
as the witness was not a qualified Architect or an Engineer. It is submitted<\/p>\n
that apart from the statement of AW-1 Gian Chand, the site plan Ex.A-1<\/p>\n
and her self serving statement, the landlady did not produce any other<\/p>\n
evidence, to establish that the building has become unsafe and unfit for<\/p>\n
human habitation. The learned Rent Controller placed reliance upon the<\/p>\n
statement of RW-2 Vikas Bagla, the expert, produced by the petitioners,
\n C.R. No.1488 of 2008                                                  4<\/span><\/p>\n
who submitted an opinion that the building requires minor repairs valued at<\/p>\n
Rs.7500\/-. His statement and report Ex.R.4 were unfairly discarded by the<\/p>\n
Appellate Court by holding that the report was contrary to the admissions<\/p>\n
made by Sh.Krishan Patwari, the original tenant and predecessor in interest<\/p>\n
of the petitioners, in his petition filed under Section 12 of the Act, praying<\/p>\n
for repair of the premises. It is argued that the repairs as prayed for were<\/p>\n
minimal and could not be construed as an admission that the building had<\/p>\n
become unsafe and unfit for human habitation.\n<\/p>\n
               It is also argued that the Appellate Authority erred in placing<\/p>\n
undue significance      on dismissal of the application for repairs, as<\/p>\n
infructuous. From the aforementioned order, the appellate Court drew an<\/p>\n
untenable inference that repairs effected, without waiting for final orders,<\/p>\n
indicates the tenant attempt to conceal the fact that the building is unsafe<\/p>\n
and unfit for human habitation. The onus to establish that the building is<\/p>\n
unsafe and unfit for human habitation, lies squarely upon the landlady, but<\/p>\n
she has failed to discharge this onus. The Appellate Authority should have,<\/p>\n
therefore, dismissed the appeal.\n<\/p>\n
             It is further argued that mere existence of cracks or seepage in<\/p>\n
the roof and the walls, in the absence of any evidence of their extent and<\/p>\n
nature, would not give rise to an inference that the building has become<\/p>\n
unsafe and unfit for human habitation. It is further submitted that Section<\/p>\n
108(f) of the Transfer of Property Act postulates that where a lessor<\/p>\n
neglects, within reasonable time, to effect repairs, the lessee may repair the<\/p>\n
building, at the cost of the lessor. The original tenant therefore did not<\/p>\n
commit any error in repairing the premises.\n<\/p>\n
            Counsel for the respondent\/landlady, on the other hand, submits
\n C.R. No.1488 of 2008                                                    5<\/span><\/p>\n
that the Appellate Authority rightly reversed the order passed by the Rent<\/p>\n
Controller. As is apparent from the order passed by the Rent Controller,<\/p>\n
much significance was not attached to the admissions made in the<\/p>\n
application seeking repairs. In this application, the tenant admitted that the<\/p>\n
demised premises had remained under water for a period of one month and<\/p>\n
as a result, the walls developed cracks and water started leaking from<\/p>\n
various parts. Instead of waiting for the outcome of the petition filed for<\/p>\n
repair of the tenanted premises, the tenant         unilaterally and without<\/p>\n
permission, of the Rent Controller, repaired the building so as to conceal the<\/p>\n
true nature and extent of the damage. The original tenant stepped into the<\/p>\n
witness box but his answers to questions, as to the extent and nature of<\/p>\n
repair carried out, were evasive and vague. For a building to be unsafe and<\/p>\n
unfit for human habitation, it is not necessary that the building should<\/p>\n
collapse or should be in such immediate and imminent danger of collapse,<\/p>\n
as would warrant instant ejectment. The appellate Court, therefore, rightly<\/p>\n
drew an adverse inference against the petitioners and accepted the appeal.<\/p>\n
              It is further submitted that the report Ex.R.4 submitted by<\/p>\n
Vikas Bagla was rightly rejected by the appellate Court. The report lacks<\/p>\n
details and was submitted after the premises were repaired. It is, therefore,<\/p>\n
asserted that as the order passed by the Appellate Authority does not suffer<\/p>\n
from any error of jurisdiction or of law, the revision petition be dismissed.<\/p>\n
             I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the<\/p>\n
orders passed by the Rent Controller as also the Appellate Authority.<\/p>\n
             Large tracks of Charkhi Dadri, including the tenanted premises<\/p>\n
were inundated by flood waters in        September     1995. Admittedly, the<\/p>\n
tenanted premises are an old building. It is not denied, by the petitioners
\n C.R. No.1488 of 2008                                                    6<\/span><\/p>\n
and is in fact asserted in their petition, filed under Section 12 of the Act, for<\/p>\n
repair of the tenanted premises( Ex.A-3 ),and in their written statement that<\/p>\n
the tenanted premises remained submerged under 6 ft. of water for more<\/p>\n
than one month. It is the positive case of the petitioners that as a result of<\/p>\n
this inundation, the tenanted premises were damaged, three walls developed<\/p>\n
cracks and the roof started leaking. It is, therefore, apparent that as per<\/p>\n
the defence set up by the deceased tenant, the building was damaged,its<\/p>\n
walls had developed cracks and there was seepage from the roof. The only<\/p>\n
point at issue, therefore, is, whether the admitted damage was sufficient for<\/p>\n
the Appellate Authority to infer that the tenanted premises had become<\/p>\n
unsafe and unfit for human habitation. Both the learned Rent Controller and<\/p>\n
the Appellate Authority have recorded diametrically opposite opinions in<\/p>\n
respect thereof.\n<\/p>\n
             The learned Rent Controller after rejecting the report submitted<\/p>\n
by the landlady’s expert,has placed reliance upon a report submitted by one<\/p>\n
Vikas Bagla, the expert produced by the petitioners.           This report was<\/p>\n
rejected by the first appellate Court, as the original tenant admitted to the<\/p>\n
existence of cracks in the walls and seepage in the roof, but the report<\/p>\n
Ex.R.5, was silent on these points and failed to make a reference to the<\/p>\n
nature of the building, the strength of the foundation and its condition. This<\/p>\n
report was prepared, after the original tenant unilaterally carried out repairs,<\/p>\n
without waiting for the decision of his application praying for repair. No<\/p>\n
infirmity or illegality is discernible from the Appellate Court’s decision to<\/p>\n
reject the report.\n<\/p>\n
             The first appellate Court      considered the averments in the<\/p>\n
petition filed for repair of the tenanted premises and in the written statement
\n C.R. No.1488 of 2008                                                   7<\/span><\/p>\n
and rightly held that the tenant had admitted to the existence of cracks<\/p>\n
and seepage in the building. The tenant without the permission of the Rent<\/p>\n
Controller and without waiting for the decision of the petition filed for<\/p>\n
repair of the tenanted premises, carried out repairs in the tenanted premises.<\/p>\n
The petition for repair of the tenanted premises was, therefore, dismissed as<\/p>\n
infructuous. The Appellate Authority rightly drew an inference from the<\/p>\n
tenant’s conduct, referred to herein above that he had effected repairs so as<\/p>\n
to conceal the true extent of the damage to the tenanted premises. The<\/p>\n
appellate Court also held that the original tenant had failed to answer a<\/p>\n
specific question, as to the nature and extent of repairs carried out by him.<\/p>\n
From the above facts an inference was rightly drawn that that the building<\/p>\n
had become unsafe and unfit for human habitation. It would, therefore, be<\/p>\n
necessary to reproduce the relevant extract from the judgement of the<\/p>\n
Appellate Authority :-\n<\/p>\n
            “It may be recalled that it is the own case of the respondent<\/p>\n
            tenant in the petition Ex.A\/3 and the notice Ex.PX that the<\/p>\n
            building had remained submerged under water for a long period<\/p>\n
            on account of flood in the month        September, 1995.       This<\/p>\n
            architect went to add that the building can be repaired at a cost<\/p>\n
            of Rs.7500\/-, which part of his report has been blindly relied<\/p>\n
            upon by the Rent Controller by using the word that the said<\/p>\n
            amount is “merely” 5 percent of the total costs of the house.<\/p>\n
            The learned Rent Controller lost sight of the fact that the rent of<\/p>\n
            the premises in question is Rs.25\/- per month equivalent to<\/p>\n
            Rs.300\/- per annum and the amount of Rs.7500\/- considered by<\/p>\n
            the Rent Controller to be an insignificant amount, would be
\n C.R. No.1488 of 2008                                                 8<\/span><\/p>\n
           equivalent to twenty five years rent of the premises in question.<\/p>\n
           Reverting to the report Ex.R\/5 of the report of RW1 Vikas<\/p>\n
           Bagla above named, it may be noticed that he has admitted<\/p>\n
           during his cross-examination that when he inspected the<\/p>\n
           premises in question, there were no cracks in the walls and he<\/p>\n
           did not remove the plaster from any portion to find out the<\/p>\n
           condition of the wall. At the cost of repetition, it may be<\/p>\n
           recalled that it is the own case of the tenant that as per his<\/p>\n
           above reoffered application Ex.A\/3, three walls in all had<\/p>\n
           developed cracks and over head roof had started leaking. An<\/p>\n
           overall appraisal of the testimony of this witness reveals that<\/p>\n
           his report Ex.R\/5 is not such upon which implicit reliance<\/p>\n
           could have been placed as done by the Rent controller.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
           XXX                      XXX                       XXX<\/p>\n
           The fact of such offering of compensation qua damage to the<\/p>\n
           premises in question is yet another circumstance showing that<\/p>\n
           the premises in question were indeed damaged and the extent of<\/p>\n
           damage as per recital in the petitioner Ex.A-3 filed by the<\/p>\n
           tenant itself reveals that it had resulted in cracks in the walls,<\/p>\n
           leading to leakage from the roof. Obviously, the extent of<\/p>\n
           leakage was so great that the deceased tenant did not wait for<\/p>\n
           the orders of the Rent Controller pursuant to his application<\/p>\n
           Ex.A-3 filed under Section 12 of the Act and chose to himself<\/p>\n
           carry out the repairs, although a tenant is not competent to do<\/p>\n
           so. Observations of own Hon’ble High Court in the case titled<\/p>\n
           as Jai Dev Singh V. M.L. Kapoor<\/a> reported in 2007(2) RCR
\n C.R. No.1488 of 2008                                                 9<\/span><\/p>\n
            (Civil) 654 may be read to advantage in this context wherein it<\/p>\n
            has been observed inter alia that the landlord is not required to<\/p>\n
            carry out material repairs and the landlord can rather seek<\/p>\n
            eviction of tenant if the building requires large scale re;pairs<\/p>\n
            and has outlived its utility.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            XXX                        XXX                     XXX<\/p>\n
            It may be highlighted in this context that as per recital in the<\/p>\n
            notice Ex.PX admittedly sent by the tenant to the landlord, the<\/p>\n
            premises in question had remained submerged for about one<\/p>\n
            month under six feet of water. Such prolonged submersion of<\/p>\n
            building under such huge quantity of water would obviously<\/p>\n
            damage the building greatly which it apparently did on account<\/p>\n
            of large cracks appeared in the walls and consequent leaking<\/p>\n
            and the tenant resorted to repair thereof without the permission<\/p>\n
            of the Rent Controller though so required thereby rendering<\/p>\n
            himself liable to eviction.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            A submission, by counsel for the petitioners that even if the<\/p>\n
walls had developed cracks and part of the roof was leaking, these facts<\/p>\n
would not by themselves lead to an inference that the building had<\/p>\n
become unsafe and unfit for human habitation, merits rejection.            A<\/p>\n
considered appraisal of the facts, particularly the age of the building, the<\/p>\n
fact that it remained submerged under flood waters, the fact that the tenant<\/p>\n
admitted the existence of cracks and leakage in the roof, the fact that the<\/p>\n
original tenant filed a petition for repair of the tenanted premises, but<\/p>\n
instead of waiting for its outcome,proceeded to        repair the premises
\n C.R. No.1488 of 2008                                                    10<\/span><\/p>\n
unilaterally, compel me to hold that the learned Appellate Authority rightly<\/p>\n
concluded that the building was unsafe and unfit for human habitation. A<\/p>\n
tenant shall not, by an unilateral act of repair, except where the repairs are<\/p>\n
minor and inconsequential, defeat a landlord’s right to seek ejectment and<\/p>\n
the Rent Controller’s statutory jurisdiction to examine whether the building<\/p>\n
has become unsafe and unfit for human habitation.              For the above<\/p>\n
conclusion, reference may be made to Balbir Singh V. Hari Singh,<\/a> 1982(2)<\/p>\n
Rent Law Reporter 463 and Som Dutt and others V. Vidhya Parkash,<\/a><\/p>\n
2003 (1) RCR 503.\n<\/p>\n
             Another argument that the cracks and the seepage in the<\/p>\n
building could be repaired by expending a nominal sum of money, as<\/p>\n
pointed out by the building expert examined by the petitioners, cannot be<\/p>\n
accepted. The building was inspected after the tenant had effected repairs.<\/p>\n
The   tenant, who was facing, a petition for ejectment, on the ground that<\/p>\n
the building had become unsafe and unfit for human habitation carried out<\/p>\n
repairs without waiting for the decision of the Rent Controller on his<\/p>\n
application for directing the landlord to repair the building. A presumption<\/p>\n
was, therefore, rightly raised against the tenant that in case repairs had not<\/p>\n
been carried out, the landlord would have succeeded in establishing that<\/p>\n
the building had become unsafe and unfit for human habitation. It would<\/p>\n
also be necessary to mention here that this inference, drawn against the<\/p>\n
tenant is fortified by the fact that when the original tenant stepped into the<\/p>\n
witness box, his reply to a question as to the nature and extent of the repairs<\/p>\n
effected by him was vague and evasive.\n<\/p>\n
             An argument that Section 108(f) of the Transfer of Property<\/p>\n
Act, entitles a tenant to effect repairs, if the landlord ignores to do so, does
\n C.R. No.1488 of 2008                                                   11<\/span><\/p>\n
not advance the petitioner’s case in any manner. Section 12 of the Act,<\/p>\n
confers a right upon a tenant to seek an order for repairs. A tenant, who<\/p>\n
approaches a Court under Section 12 of the Act, would be required to wait<\/p>\n
and abide by the decision of the Rent Controller and shall not during the<\/p>\n
pendency of such an application, effect repairs             unilaterally, more<\/p>\n
particularly, where an ejectment petition is pending.<\/p>\n
             In view of what has been stated herein above, as the impugned<\/p>\n
order, passed by the Appellate Authority, holding that the building has<\/p>\n
become unsafe and unfit for human habitation, thus, requiring the<\/p>\n
petitioners ejectment does not suffer from any error of jurisdiction or of law,<\/p>\n
the revision petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.<\/p>\n
25.8.2008                                           (RAJIVE BHALLA)\nGS                                                       JUDGE\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court Smt.Geeta Devi And Others vs Smt.Sushila on 25 August, 2008 C.R. No.1488 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R. No.1488 of 2008 Date of Decision: 25.8.2008 Smt.Geeta Devi and others …..Petitioners Vs. Smt.Sushila ….Respondent …. CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA **** Present : Mr. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,28],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-107589","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-punjab-haryana-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nSmt.Geeta Devi And Others vs Smt.Sushila on 25 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-geeta-devi-and-others-vs-smt-sushila-on-25-august-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Smt.Geeta Devi And Others vs Smt.Sushila on 25 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-geeta-devi-and-others-vs-smt-sushila-on-25-august-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2008-08-24T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-08-17T04:17:14+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"15 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-geeta-devi-and-others-vs-smt-sushila-on-25-august-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-geeta-devi-and-others-vs-smt-sushila-on-25-august-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Smt.Geeta Devi And Others vs Smt.Sushila on 25 August, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-08-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-08-17T04:17:14+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-geeta-devi-and-others-vs-smt-sushila-on-25-august-2008\"},\"wordCount\":2913,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Punjab-Haryana High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-geeta-devi-and-others-vs-smt-sushila-on-25-august-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-geeta-devi-and-others-vs-smt-sushila-on-25-august-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-geeta-devi-and-others-vs-smt-sushila-on-25-august-2008\",\"name\":\"Smt.Geeta Devi And Others vs Smt.Sushila on 25 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-08-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-08-17T04:17:14+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-geeta-devi-and-others-vs-smt-sushila-on-25-august-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-geeta-devi-and-others-vs-smt-sushila-on-25-august-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-geeta-devi-and-others-vs-smt-sushila-on-25-august-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Smt.Geeta Devi And Others vs Smt.Sushila on 25 August, 2008\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Smt.Geeta Devi And Others vs Smt.Sushila on 25 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-geeta-devi-and-others-vs-smt-sushila-on-25-august-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Smt.Geeta Devi And Others vs Smt.Sushila on 25 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-geeta-devi-and-others-vs-smt-sushila-on-25-august-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-08-24T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-08-17T04:17:14+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"15 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-geeta-devi-and-others-vs-smt-sushila-on-25-august-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-geeta-devi-and-others-vs-smt-sushila-on-25-august-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Smt.Geeta Devi And Others vs Smt.Sushila on 25 August, 2008","datePublished":"2008-08-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-08-17T04:17:14+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-geeta-devi-and-others-vs-smt-sushila-on-25-august-2008"},"wordCount":2913,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Punjab-Haryana High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-geeta-devi-and-others-vs-smt-sushila-on-25-august-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-geeta-devi-and-others-vs-smt-sushila-on-25-august-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-geeta-devi-and-others-vs-smt-sushila-on-25-august-2008","name":"Smt.Geeta Devi And Others vs Smt.Sushila on 25 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-08-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-08-17T04:17:14+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-geeta-devi-and-others-vs-smt-sushila-on-25-august-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-geeta-devi-and-others-vs-smt-sushila-on-25-august-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-geeta-devi-and-others-vs-smt-sushila-on-25-august-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Smt.Geeta Devi And Others vs Smt.Sushila on 25 August, 2008"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/107589","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=107589"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/107589\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=107589"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=107589"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=107589"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}