{"id":114898,"date":"2010-02-23T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-02-22T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-m-salim-vs-pradeep-naik-on-23-february-2010"},"modified":"2017-04-22T19:18:31","modified_gmt":"2017-04-22T13:48:31","slug":"m-m-salim-vs-pradeep-naik-on-23-february-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-m-salim-vs-pradeep-naik-on-23-february-2010","title":{"rendered":"M.M.Salim vs Pradeep Naik on 23 February, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
M.M.Salim vs Pradeep Naik on 23 February, 2010<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nRCRev..No. 42 of 2009()\n\n\n1. M.M.SALIM, S\/O.M.M.HANEEFA,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. PRADEEP NAIK,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.ALEX N.MATHEW (KOLLAM)\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.V.V.RAJA\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice C.K.ABDUL REHIM\n\n Dated :23\/02\/2010\n\n O R D E R\n        PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ.\n                   ----------------------------------\n\n                     R.C.R. No.42 of 2009\n\n                   ----------------------------------\n             Dated this the 23rd day of February, 2010\n\n\n                             O R D E R\n<\/pre>\n
                            —————\n<\/p>\n
Abdul Rehim,J.\n<\/p>\n
           The respondent in RC(OP) 40\/2000 on the files of<\/p>\n
the Rent Control Court, Kollam is the revision petitioner.<\/p>\n
The respondent\/landlord filed petition seeking eviction on<\/p>\n
the ground of bonafide need, under Section 11(3) of the<\/p>\n
Kerala Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (for short<\/p>\n
the Act). According to the landlord the petition schedule<\/p>\n
building, which forms part of a row of shops, is situated on<\/p>\n
the southern side of a property having 70 cents in extent<\/p>\n
which contains his residential building. Since there is no<\/p>\n
motorable access to the said property and to the residential<\/p>\n
building, the landlord wanted to demolish the petition<\/p>\n
schedule shop room and also another shop room situated on<\/p>\n
its western side to create vehicular pathway to the property<\/p>\n
and to the residential building situated on its back. Hence<\/p>\n
eviction was sought for under S.11(3).\n<\/p>\n
     2.    Evidence before the Rent Control Court consisted<\/p>\n
of oral testimony of landlord examined as PW1 and Ext.A1 to<\/p>\n
A3 documents marked on his behalf.                    The revision<\/p>\n
RCR.42\/2009
\n                                 2<\/span><\/p>\n
petitioner\/tenant was examined as DW1.            DW2 is the<\/p>\n
accommodation controller examined as a witness on his<\/p>\n
behalf. Ext.C1 commission report and C2 mahazar was also<\/p>\n
marked in evidence. The Rent Control Court after elaborate<\/p>\n
consideration of the evidence on record found that the<\/p>\n
landlord was not successful in proving that the need projected<\/p>\n
is genuine and bonafide.          Therefore the petition was<\/p>\n
dismissed.   In   appeal before the Appellate Authority (the<\/p>\n
District Court, Kollam) the evidence was totally re-appraised.<\/p>\n
The Appellate Authority found that the need put forth by the<\/p>\n
landlord to have a spacious opening to the property and to the<\/p>\n
residential building for access of vehicles, is genuine and<\/p>\n
bonafide. In reversal of findings of the Rent Control Court, the<\/p>\n
Appellate Authority found that the tenant is liable to be<\/p>\n
evicted for the need projected by the landlord.<\/p>\n
      3.   In this revision petition the tenant contended that,<\/p>\n
the Rent Control Court having found the need as not bonafide<\/p>\n
has not adverted to the aspects of protection provided under<\/p>\n
the second proviso to S.11(3).       Sri. H. Ramanan, learned<\/p>\n
counsel for the revision petitioner, argued before us that there<\/p>\n
was specific contention raised by the tenant before the Rent<\/p>\n
Control Court that the business conducted in the petition<\/p>\n
RCR.42\/2009
\n                                 3<\/span><\/p>\n
schedule room is the main source of livelihood of the tenant<\/p>\n
and his family and that there are no other suitable buildings<\/p>\n
available in the locality for shifting of the business. But the<\/p>\n
Rent Control Court having found that the need projected is not<\/p>\n
genuine and bonafide has not considered the point as to<\/p>\n
whether the tenant is eligible for protection under the second<\/p>\n
proviso. But the Appellate Authority with due advertence to<\/p>\n
the evidence adduced on this aspect, had arrived at a<\/p>\n
conclusion that the tenant was not successful in proving both<\/p>\n
limbs under the second proviso to S.11(3). It is observed that<\/p>\n
not even a scrap of paper was produced to prove the income<\/p>\n
actually earned by the tenant from the business carried on in<\/p>\n
the premises. Inspite of the fact there is evidence to the effect<\/p>\n
that the business was having Sales Tax Registration, the<\/p>\n
tenant had failed to produce any Books of Accounts to show<\/p>\n
that the income derived from the business is the main source<\/p>\n
of his livelihood. Coming to the second limb of the second<\/p>\n
proviso, the Appellate Authority found that DW2, the<\/p>\n
Accommodation Controller when cross-examined has admitted<\/p>\n
that vacancies are only rarely reported to that authority.<\/p>\n
Therefore the Appellate Authority found that the tenant was<\/p>\n
not at all successful in proving both the limbs of the second<\/p>\n
RCR.42\/2009
\n                                 4<\/span><\/p>\n
proviso.\n<\/p>\n
      4.   Sri. H. Ramanan, learned counsel for the petitioner,<\/p>\n
contended that since the Rent Control Court has not<\/p>\n
considered the aspect of second proviso the tenant was<\/p>\n
prevented from adducing proper evidence on that particular<\/p>\n
aspect. We notice that, it was the burden of the tenant to<\/p>\n
adduce evidence in proving claim seeking protection under the<\/p>\n
second proviso to S.11(3), as held by this court in a Full Bench<\/p>\n
decision reported in Francis v. Sreedevi Varassiar<\/a> (2003<\/p>\n
(2) KLT 230 (F.B). Eventhough the Rent Control Court has<\/p>\n
not considered the evidence adduced on the aspect of the<\/p>\n
second proviso, we are not persuaded to accept that the non<\/p>\n
consideration had in any manner caused prejudice to the<\/p>\n
petitioner.  In the matter of adducing evidence on the aspect<\/p>\n
of the second proviso, it could not be contended that there was<\/p>\n
any denial of opportunity. The Appellate Authority, being the<\/p>\n
final fact finding authority, had elaborately considered the<\/p>\n
evidence on this aspect and found that the tenant is not<\/p>\n
entitled for protection provided under the second proviso to<\/p>\n
Section 11(3).\n<\/p>\n
      5.   Sri.H. Ramanan raised further contention before us<\/p>\n
that, the Rent Control Petition filed by the landlord against the<\/p>\n
RCR.42\/2009
\n                                 5<\/span><\/p>\n
neighbouring tenant was also dismissed and that the matter is<\/p>\n
now pending in appeal. Contention is that unless the landlord<\/p>\n
get eviction of the building belonging to that tenant, the need<\/p>\n
projected could not be accomplished.       But we are of the<\/p>\n
opinion that merit of this Rent Control Petition filed against<\/p>\n
the tenant has to be decided on the basis of evidence adduced<\/p>\n
in this case. The other Rent Control Petition was not jointly<\/p>\n
tried or disposed of by any common judgment. Therefore we<\/p>\n
are not persuaded to accept the contention that outcome of<\/p>\n
that Rent Control Petition filed against the neighbouring<\/p>\n
tenant, should have a bearing in the decision of this case. On<\/p>\n
the other hand, Sri.Raja Vijayaraghavan, learned counsel for<\/p>\n
the respondent submitted that the Rent Control Appeal filed<\/p>\n
with respect to the other tenant is pending disposal before the<\/p>\n
District Court, Kollam. We notice that if the need urged for<\/p>\n
evicting the tenant under Section 11(3) could not be<\/p>\n
accomplished within the stipulated time, the tenant is at<\/p>\n
liberty to invoke remedy available under Section 11(12).<\/p>\n
Therefore the contention in this regard is not a ground to<\/p>\n
interfere with the findings arrived by the Appellate Authority.<\/p>\n
     6.    Under the above mentioned circumstances we find<\/p>\n
no infirmity, illegality, irregularity or impropriety with the<\/p>\n
RCR.42\/2009
\n                                 6<\/span><\/p>\n
findings rendered by the Appellate Authority which is the final<\/p>\n
fact finding authority. In the attenuated revisional jurisdiction<\/p>\n
under Section 20 of the Act, we do not find any merit which<\/p>\n
warrants interference for reversal of the impugned findings.<\/p>\n
Accordingly the revision petition is liable to be dismissed.<\/p>\n
      7.   However, Sri.H. Ramanan, learned counsel for the<\/p>\n
revision petitioner, sought indulgence of this court in granting<\/p>\n
one year period for surrendering vacant possession of the<\/p>\n
tenanted premises, on the ground that the tenant has to find<\/p>\n
out alternate accommodation for shifting the business<\/p>\n
conducted in the schedule premises. Sri. Raja Vijayaraghavan,<\/p>\n
learned     counsel     appearing      on     behalf    of   the<\/p>\n
respondent\/landlord strongly opposes such plea.           Having<\/p>\n
considered facts and circumstances of the case we are of the<\/p>\n
opinion that the tenant can be permitted to grant time for a<\/p>\n
period of one year to vacate the schedule premises, subject to<\/p>\n
certain conditions.\n<\/p>\n
      8.   In the result the Rent Control Petition is disposed of<\/p>\n
with the following directions:\n<\/p>\n
      (i). While dismissing the Rent Control Revision we grant<\/p>\n
time for the revision petitioner\/tenant to hand over vacant<\/p>\n
possession     of    the     scheduled      building    to   the<\/p>\n
RCR.42\/2009
\n                                7<\/span><\/p>\n
respondent\/landlord, till 28.2.2011, subject to the condition<\/p>\n
that the revision petitioner shall file an affidavit before the<\/p>\n
execution court or the Rent Control Court, as the case may be,<\/p>\n
within a period of three weeks from today, undertaking that he<\/p>\n
will hand over vacant possession of the schedule premises to<\/p>\n
the landlord on or before 28.2.2011 and also undertaking that<\/p>\n
arrears of rent if any due will be paid within a period of one<\/p>\n
month from today.      In the affidavit the tenant will also<\/p>\n
undertake to pay occupational charges at the prevailing rate of<\/p>\n
monthly rent periodically, till surrender of possession of the<\/p>\n
scheduled building.\n<\/p>\n
     (ii). The execution court is directed to adjourn delivery<\/p>\n
of the scheduled building till 1.3.2011, once filing of the<\/p>\n
affidavit and payment of arrears of rent and occupational<\/p>\n
charges as directed above is noticed.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                         PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE.\n<\/p>\n
                          C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE.\n<\/p>\n
okb<\/p>\n
RCR.42\/2009
\n               8<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court M.M.Salim vs Pradeep Naik on 23 February, 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM RCRev..No. 42 of 2009() 1. M.M.SALIM, S\/O.M.M.HANEEFA, … Petitioner Vs 1. PRADEEP NAIK, … Respondent For Petitioner :SRI.ALEX N.MATHEW (KOLLAM) For Respondent :SRI.V.V.RAJA The Hon’ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE The Hon’ble MR. Justice C.K.ABDUL REHIM Dated […]<\/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":[8,21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-114898","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nM.M.Salim vs Pradeep Naik on 23 February, 2010 - 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\/m-m-salim-vs-pradeep-naik-on-23-february-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"M.M.Salim vs Pradeep Naik on 23 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-m-salim-vs-pradeep-naik-on-23-february-2010\" \/>\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=\"2010-02-22T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-04-22T13:48:31+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=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-m-salim-vs-pradeep-naik-on-23-february-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-m-salim-vs-pradeep-naik-on-23-february-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"M.M.Salim vs Pradeep Naik on 23 February, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-02-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-04-22T13:48:31+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-m-salim-vs-pradeep-naik-on-23-february-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1370,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Kerala High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-m-salim-vs-pradeep-naik-on-23-february-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-m-salim-vs-pradeep-naik-on-23-february-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-m-salim-vs-pradeep-naik-on-23-february-2010\",\"name\":\"M.M.Salim vs Pradeep Naik on 23 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-02-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-04-22T13:48:31+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-m-salim-vs-pradeep-naik-on-23-february-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-m-salim-vs-pradeep-naik-on-23-february-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-m-salim-vs-pradeep-naik-on-23-february-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"M.M.Salim vs Pradeep Naik on 23 February, 2010\"}]},{\"@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":"M.M.Salim vs Pradeep Naik on 23 February, 2010 - 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\/m-m-salim-vs-pradeep-naik-on-23-february-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"M.M.Salim vs Pradeep Naik on 23 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-m-salim-vs-pradeep-naik-on-23-february-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-02-22T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-04-22T13:48:31+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":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-m-salim-vs-pradeep-naik-on-23-february-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-m-salim-vs-pradeep-naik-on-23-february-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"M.M.Salim vs Pradeep Naik on 23 February, 2010","datePublished":"2010-02-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-04-22T13:48:31+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-m-salim-vs-pradeep-naik-on-23-february-2010"},"wordCount":1370,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Kerala High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-m-salim-vs-pradeep-naik-on-23-february-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-m-salim-vs-pradeep-naik-on-23-february-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-m-salim-vs-pradeep-naik-on-23-february-2010","name":"M.M.Salim vs Pradeep Naik on 23 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-02-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-04-22T13:48:31+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-m-salim-vs-pradeep-naik-on-23-february-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-m-salim-vs-pradeep-naik-on-23-february-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-m-salim-vs-pradeep-naik-on-23-february-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"M.M.Salim vs Pradeep Naik on 23 February, 2010"}]},{"@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\/114898","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=114898"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/114898\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=114898"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=114898"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=114898"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}