{"id":119346,"date":"2002-09-11T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2002-09-10T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-ram-niwas-vs-shri-lakshmi-narain-on-11-september-2002-2"},"modified":"2019-01-23T21:45:33","modified_gmt":"2019-01-23T16:15:33","slug":"shri-ram-niwas-vs-shri-lakshmi-narain-on-11-september-2002-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-ram-niwas-vs-shri-lakshmi-narain-on-11-september-2002-2","title":{"rendered":"Shri Ram Niwas vs Shri Lakshmi Narain on 11 September, 2002"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Delhi High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Shri Ram Niwas vs Shri Lakshmi Narain on 11 September, 2002<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_citations\">Equivalent citations: 100 (2002) DLT 252<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: R Chopra<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: R Chopra<\/div>\n<\/p>\n<pre><\/pre>\n<p>JUDGMENT<\/p>\n<p> R.C. Chopra, J. <\/p>\n<p>1. This petition under Section 25-B(8) of Delhi<br \/>\nRent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the<br \/>\n&#8220;Act&#8221; only) is directed against an order dated 26th<br \/>\nApril, 2001 passed by learned Additional Rent Controller<br \/>\nin E.No. 212\/1994 allowing the respondent&#8217;s petition<br \/>\nunder Section 14(1)(e) of the Act and passing eviction<br \/>\norders against the petitioner in respect of suit<br \/>\npremises at 256, Gali Prakash, Teliwari, Delhi. This<br \/>\norder shall also dispose of the petitioner&#8217;s application<br \/>\nNo. CM-967\/2002 under Section 151 of the CPC for<br \/>\npermission to bring on record subsequent events.\n<\/p>\n<p>2. The facts, relevant for the disposal of the<br \/>\npetition and the application under Section 151 of the<br \/>\nCPC filed by the petitioner-tenant, briefly stated, are<br \/>\nthat the respondent had failed a petition for eviction<br \/>\nagainst petitioner under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act<br \/>\nalleging that the petitioner was a tenant in suit<br \/>\npremises but the said premises were required bonafide by<br \/>\nhim for himself and his family members for residential<br \/>\nuse. The respondent alleged that his family consisted<br \/>\nof himself, his wife and two children who were school<br \/>\ngoing at the time of filing the petition. The<br \/>\nrespondent-landlord also had mother and a married sister<br \/>\nalso who occasionally visited him and stayed with him on<br \/>\nfestivals and functions. It was stated that on other<br \/>\ntenant in the property, Rajesh Kumar had assured to<br \/>\nvacate one room and a kitchen in his tenancy on the<br \/>\nsecond floor of suit property but even after the<br \/>\nrecovery of the said portion, the respondent would be<br \/>\nshort of accommodation and would require premises in<br \/>\npossession of the tenant\/petitioner.\n<\/p>\n<p>3. The petitioner\/tenant was granted leave to defend<br \/>\nthe eviction petition. He contested the eviction<br \/>\npetition mainly on the ground that respondent was<br \/>\nneither owner nor landlord of the premises in question<br \/>\nand there was no privity of contract between the<br \/>\nparties. It was also contended that the respondent was<br \/>\nresiding in House No. 491, Mahavir Bazar, Delhi and was<br \/>\nkeeping the first and second floor of the House No. 256.<br \/>\nGali Prakash, Teliwara, Delhi vacant and as such, the<br \/>\naccommodation with him was already more than sufficient.<br \/>\nThe plea of bonafide requirement was stated to be sham<br \/>\nand bogus and motivated by the reason that the rent<br \/>\nbeing paid by the petitioner was too low. It was stated<br \/>\nthat other tenant Rajesh Kumar had already vacated the<br \/>\npremises in his possession and handed over the same to<br \/>\nthe respondent.\n<\/p>\n<p>4. The parties led their evidence before the learned<br \/>\nARC. After considering the evidence on record and<br \/>\nsubmissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the<br \/>\nlearned ARC held that the respondent was the<br \/>\nowner-landlord of the premises in question: premises<br \/>\nhad been let out for residential purpose; the<br \/>\nrespondent had no other alternative accommodation<br \/>\navailable to him and he was in bonafide need of the<br \/>\npremises in question. Accordingly, the impugned<br \/>\neviction order was passed.\n<\/p>\n<p>5. Learned counsel for the petitioner-tenant has<br \/>\nvehemently argued before this Court that till date, the<br \/>\nrespondent-landlord was residing in premises No. 491,<br \/>\nMahavir Bazar, Delhi and had not shifted to the suit<br \/>\npremises and as such, he was guilty of concealment of<br \/>\nmaterial facts. It is also argued that the respondent<br \/>\nhad not come to the Court with clearing hands in as much as<br \/>\nin the sale deed dated 8.8.1989 in respect of the suit<br \/>\npremises in his favor, it was stated that vacant<br \/>\npossession of the property was being handed over to the<br \/>\nrespondent which clause was falsely introduced as the<br \/>\nrespondent wanted and in fact tried to dispossess the<br \/>\npetitioner by use of force. It is argued that the<br \/>\nrespondent-landlord had no bonafide need and he wanted<br \/>\nto evict the petitioners the rent being paid by the<br \/>\npetitioner was only Rs. 10\/- per month.\n<\/p>\n<p>6. In the application IA.No. 967\/2002 under Section<br \/>\n151 CPC, certain documents were sought to be brought to<br \/>\nthe notice of the court to show that even up to 2001, the<br \/>\nrespondent-landlord was actually living in property<br \/>\nNo. 491, Mahavir Bazar, Delhi and the correspondence<br \/>\naddressed to him at the premises in question was being<br \/>\nreturned back with the remarks that he was not living<br \/>\nthere.\n<\/p>\n<p>7. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other<br \/>\nhand, has vehemently argued that this, exercising<br \/>\npower under Section 25-B(8) of the Act, must refrain<br \/>\nfrom interfering with the order passed by the learned<br \/>\nARC if the same is in accordance with law and is not<br \/>\nperverse, unreasonable or erroneous. It is submitted<br \/>\nthat the premises No. 491, Mahavir Bazar, Delhi are under<br \/>\nthe tenancy of the mother of the respondent where the<br \/>\nrespondent has been living prior to the purchase of the<br \/>\nsuit property and even if letters are being received at<br \/>\nthe said address and letters at suit premises are being<br \/>\nre-directed to the said address it would not show that<br \/>\nthe respondent does not require the premises in question<br \/>\nfor his residential use. It is argued that the<br \/>\nrespondent having no other alternative accommodation and<br \/>\nbeing the owner of the premises in question is entitled<br \/>\nto an order of eviction against the petitioner. It is<br \/>\nalso submitted that the averments in the Sale Deed do<br \/>\nnot negative the plea of bonafide need as raised by the<br \/>\nrespondent and even if he had tried to dispossess the<br \/>\npetitioner forcibly, that would not go to show that he<br \/>\ndoes not need the premises for residential use. It is<br \/>\nsubmitted that the petitioner is having only two rooms<br \/>\non the first floor and one room on the second floor.<br \/>\nThe kitchen is on the second floor and there is no WC on<br \/>\nthe first or the second floor and the respondent and his<br \/>\nfamily have to share WC with the petitioner-tenant at<br \/>\nthe ground floor. It is submitted that the respondent&#8217;s<br \/>\nson even is now of marriageable age and as such, he also<br \/>\nrequires sufficient accommodation to live comfortably<br \/>\nwith his parents after marriage. It is pointed out that<br \/>\neven petitioner&#8217;s witnesses RWs 4 &amp; 5 could not<br \/>\nsatisfactorily prove on record that the respondent was<br \/>\nnot living in the premises in question. It is argued<br \/>\nthat the documents filed by the petitioner along with CM<br \/>\nNo. 967\/2002 even if taken into consideration, do not<br \/>\nnegative the respondent&#8217;s case of bonafide need for<br \/>\nresidential purposes.\n<\/p>\n<p>8. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner,<br \/>\nlearned counsel for the respondent. I have gone through<br \/>\nthe records of the case.\n<\/p>\n<p>9. The law is well settled that the powers of the<br \/>\nHigh Court under Section 25-B(8) of the Act are not as<br \/>\nwide as those of an Appellate Court. The High Court<br \/>\nmust not appreciate or reappreciate the evidence on<br \/>\nrecord merely because it is inclined to take a different<br \/>\nview. <a href=\"\/doc\/721898\/\">In  Shiv Kumar Gupta v. Mahesh Chand Gupta<\/a> , Hon&#8217;ble Mr. Justice R.C. Lahoti,<br \/>\nspeaking for the Bench discussed in detail the<br \/>\nparameters within which the High Court should remain<br \/>\nwhile exercising jurisdiction under section 25-B(8) of<br \/>\nthe Act. His lordship held that the High Court has to<br \/>\ntest the order of the Rent Controller on the touchstone<br \/>\nof &#8216;whether it is according to law&#8217; and for this purpose<br \/>\nalone the High Court may enter into reappraisal of<br \/>\nevidence. In case the High Court comes to the<br \/>\nconclusion that the view taken by the Rent Controller is<br \/>\nnot according to law or wholly unreasonable or such that<br \/>\nno reasonable person acting objectively could take such<br \/>\na view the High Court would be justified in substituting<br \/>\nits view but not otherwise.\n<\/p>\n<p>10. In the present case the respondent-landlord was<br \/>\nliving in a tented house and there is nothing on record<br \/>\nto show that he is having any other alternative<br \/>\nresidential accommodation. A landlord living in a<br \/>\nrented house of his mother has every right to insist<br \/>\nthat he wants to shift to his own house. Even if the<br \/>\nplea of the respondent landlord regarding his stay in<br \/>\nsome portions of suit property had been found to be<br \/>\nfalse and he had been found living with his other family<br \/>\nmembers in the rented house at 491, Mahabir Bazar, Delhi<br \/>\nthat could not be a ground to hold that his need for the<br \/>\nsuit premises for residential use is not bonafide. The<br \/>\nfact that the letters received in the name of the<br \/>\nrespondent are still being received at the address of<br \/>\n491, Mahabir Bazar, Delhi or the letters addressed to<br \/>\nhim on the suit premises are being re-directed to the<br \/>\naforesaid premises with the reports that he is not<br \/>\nliving in the suit premises is of no consequence as<br \/>\nthese facts do not show that the respondent&#8217;s<br \/>\nrequirement of the premises is not bonafide. If on<br \/>\naccount of paucity of accommodation in the suit premises<br \/>\nthe respondent is continuing to use the tenanted<br \/>\npremises of his mother also which are near-by, that is<br \/>\nnot a ground to reject his plea of bonafide requirement.<br \/>\nThe evidence on record satisfactorily shows that the<br \/>\nrespondent, his wife and his children who are of<br \/>\nmarriageable age are short of accommodation. Even after<br \/>\nreceipt of one room from another tenant Rajesh Kumar the<br \/>\nrespondent and his family require additional<br \/>\naccommodation as the respondent&#8217;s son is of marriageable<br \/>\nage and he needs a room for his mother, sister and<br \/>\nguests also. The only kitchen available in the house is<br \/>\non the second floor and the WC is available on the<br \/>\nground floor only which the respondent cannot<br \/>\nconveniently share with the petitioner and his family.<br \/>\nTherefore, there is no doubt about the genuine<br \/>\nrequirement of the premises in question by the<br \/>\nrespondent. The sale deed in favor of the respondent<br \/>\nproves on record that he is the owner-landlord of the<br \/>\npremises in question. The plea of the petitioner that<br \/>\nhe has no privity of contract with the respondent is<br \/>\nwholly untenable.\n<\/p>\n<p>11. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently<br \/>\nargued that the respondent is not entitled to relief as<br \/>\nclaimed for the reason that in the sale deed in respect<br \/>\nof the suit property it was falsely averred that the<br \/>\nproperty in question was vacant and thereafter the<br \/>\nrespondent even tried to dispossess the petitioner from<br \/>\nthe suit premises by use of force. This Court is of the<br \/>\nopinion that this plea cannot be sustained for defeating<br \/>\nthe respondent&#8217;s case as in much as the respondent&#8217;s<br \/>\nconduct might not have been gentlemanly but it stemmed<br \/>\nfrom this need only.\n<\/p>\n<p>12. Learned Addl. Rent Controller after considering<br \/>\nthe evidence on record had come to the conclusion that<br \/>\nthe respondent was the owner landlord of the premises in<br \/>\nquestion and he bonafide required the premises in<br \/>\npossession of the petitioner for his residential use.<br \/>\nIt was also held that the respondent had not other<br \/>\nalternative residential accommodation. The eviction<br \/>\norder passed against the petitioner was in accordance<br \/>\nwith law. This Court does not find any infirmity with<br \/>\nthe view taken by learned ARC and as such is of the<br \/>\nconsidered view that it is not a fit case in which this<br \/>\nCourt should interfere in exercise of powers under<br \/>\nSection 25B(8) of the Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>CM.No. 967\/2002 stands disposed of.\n<\/p>\n<p>13. The petition CR.No. 853\/2001, however, stands<br \/>\ndismissed.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Delhi High Court Shri Ram Niwas vs Shri Lakshmi Narain on 11 September, 2002 Equivalent citations: 100 (2002) DLT 252 Author: R Chopra Bench: R Chopra JUDGMENT R.C. Chopra, J. 1. This petition under Section 25-B(8) of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the &#8220;Act&#8221; only) is directed against an order dated [&hellip;]<\/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":[14,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-119346","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-delhi-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Shri Ram Niwas vs Shri Lakshmi Narain on 11 September, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/shri-ram-niwas-vs-shri-lakshmi-narain-on-11-september-2002-2\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Shri Ram Niwas vs Shri Lakshmi Narain on 11 September, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-ram-niwas-vs-shri-lakshmi-narain-on-11-september-2002-2\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2002-09-10T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-01-23T16:15:33+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=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-ram-niwas-vs-shri-lakshmi-narain-on-11-september-2002-2#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-ram-niwas-vs-shri-lakshmi-narain-on-11-september-2002-2\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Shri Ram Niwas vs Shri Lakshmi Narain on 11 September, 2002\",\"datePublished\":\"2002-09-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-01-23T16:15:33+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-ram-niwas-vs-shri-lakshmi-narain-on-11-september-2002-2\"},\"wordCount\":1874,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Delhi High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-ram-niwas-vs-shri-lakshmi-narain-on-11-september-2002-2#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-ram-niwas-vs-shri-lakshmi-narain-on-11-september-2002-2\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-ram-niwas-vs-shri-lakshmi-narain-on-11-september-2002-2\",\"name\":\"Shri Ram Niwas vs Shri Lakshmi Narain on 11 September, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2002-09-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-01-23T16:15:33+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-ram-niwas-vs-shri-lakshmi-narain-on-11-september-2002-2#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-ram-niwas-vs-shri-lakshmi-narain-on-11-september-2002-2\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-ram-niwas-vs-shri-lakshmi-narain-on-11-september-2002-2#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Shri Ram Niwas vs Shri Lakshmi Narain on 11 September, 2002\"}]},{\"@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":"Shri Ram Niwas vs Shri Lakshmi Narain on 11 September, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/shri-ram-niwas-vs-shri-lakshmi-narain-on-11-september-2002-2","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Shri Ram Niwas vs Shri Lakshmi Narain on 11 September, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-ram-niwas-vs-shri-lakshmi-narain-on-11-september-2002-2","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2002-09-10T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-01-23T16:15:33+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":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-ram-niwas-vs-shri-lakshmi-narain-on-11-september-2002-2#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-ram-niwas-vs-shri-lakshmi-narain-on-11-september-2002-2"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Shri Ram Niwas vs Shri Lakshmi Narain on 11 September, 2002","datePublished":"2002-09-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-01-23T16:15:33+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-ram-niwas-vs-shri-lakshmi-narain-on-11-september-2002-2"},"wordCount":1874,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Delhi High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-ram-niwas-vs-shri-lakshmi-narain-on-11-september-2002-2#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-ram-niwas-vs-shri-lakshmi-narain-on-11-september-2002-2","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-ram-niwas-vs-shri-lakshmi-narain-on-11-september-2002-2","name":"Shri Ram Niwas vs Shri Lakshmi Narain on 11 September, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2002-09-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-01-23T16:15:33+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-ram-niwas-vs-shri-lakshmi-narain-on-11-september-2002-2#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-ram-niwas-vs-shri-lakshmi-narain-on-11-september-2002-2"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-ram-niwas-vs-shri-lakshmi-narain-on-11-september-2002-2#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Shri Ram Niwas vs Shri Lakshmi Narain on 11 September, 2002"}]},{"@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\/119346","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=119346"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/119346\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=119346"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=119346"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=119346"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}