{"id":13776,"date":"2009-05-04T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-05-03T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-r-f-limited-and-another-vs-s-major-singh-purewal-on-4-may-2009"},"modified":"2015-06-25T10:30:17","modified_gmt":"2015-06-25T05:00:17","slug":"m-r-f-limited-and-another-vs-s-major-singh-purewal-on-4-may-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-r-f-limited-and-another-vs-s-major-singh-purewal-on-4-may-2009","title":{"rendered":"M.R.F.Limited And Another vs S.Major Singh Purewal on 4 May, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court<\/div>\n
M.R.F.Limited And Another vs S.Major Singh Purewal on 4 May, 2009<\/div>\n
     IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT\n                       CHANDIGARH\n\n                                      Civil Revision No.5547 of 2008\n                                      Date of decision: 04.05.2009\n\n\n\nM.R.F.Limited and another                          ...Petitioners\n\n\n                                 versus\n\n\nS.Major Singh Purewal                              ...Respondent\n\n\n\nCORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN\n\n\nPresent:     Mr. Kanwaljit Singh, Senior Advocate with\n             Mr. Harmanjit Singh, Advocate, for the petitioners.\n\n             Mr. Arun K. Bakshi, Advocate for the respondent.\n                         -----\n<\/pre>\n
1.     Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the
\n       judgment ?\n<\/p>\n
2.     To be referred to the reporters or not ?\n<\/p>\n
3.     Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ?<\/p>\n
K.Kannan, J.(Oral)<\/p>\n
             1.    The application for grant of leave to defend filed by<\/p>\n
the tenant was rejected by the Rent Controller in a petition filed by the<\/p>\n
landlord under Section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction<\/p>\n
Act. In the petition for leave to defend, the tenant put several contentions<\/p>\n
of which predominant ones that galvanised attention before the Rent<\/p>\n
Controller and before me, by the persuasive arguments of the learned<\/p>\n
Senior counsel were ; (i) The document of lease in favour of the tenant<\/p>\n
allowed for 20 years period with a right of renewal by the tenant and a<\/p>\n
liberty given to the tenant for premature determination of tenancy. The
\n Civil Revision No.5547 of 2008                            -2-<\/span><\/p>\n
petition filed before the expiry of the said period was not tenable;<\/p>\n
(ii) The landlord was guilty of concealment in that he did not reveal the<\/p>\n
existence of other properties which he might have owned and which he<\/p>\n
required a further probe.     The Rent Controller rejected both these<\/p>\n
contentions as not enabling the tenant to have the right of defence and<\/p>\n
ordered summary ejectment.\n<\/p>\n
            2.     The learned Senior counsel appearing for the tenant<\/p>\n
states at the outset that the lease deed provides for 20 years commencing<\/p>\n
from 1993 and the petition filed before the conclusion of the said period<\/p>\n
was not maintainable.     He points out that the reliance of the Rent<\/p>\n
Controller to the decision of this Court in Paramjit Kaur (Smt.) Versus<\/p>\n
Satya Gupta (Smt.) and others-1996(2) RLR 319, was clearly<\/p>\n
misplaced since the judgment which relied on a decision of Hon’ble the<\/p>\n
Supreme Court in Lakshmi Venkateshwara Enterprises (P) Ltd.<\/p>\n
Versus Syeda Vajhiunnissa Begum- 1994(2) RCR 121, dealt with a<\/p>\n
different situation where although the petition was filed prior to the<\/p>\n
expiry of the period stipulated under the lease, the landlord there was<\/p>\n
contending that by violation of the term under the contract there had<\/p>\n
been a premature termination of tenancy which the landlord was entitled<\/p>\n
to invoke. In this case, according to the learned Senior counsel, no<\/p>\n
violation of term of lease had been canvassed by the landlord and when<\/p>\n
the 20 years period had not concluded, the petition was not maintainable.<\/p>\n
While I will agree with the submission that a petition for eviction even<\/p>\n
within the expiry of the period mentioned in a contract would always be<\/p>\n
possible if a landlord’s resort to action under the rent control enactment
\n Civil Revision No.5547 of 2008                            -3-<\/span><\/p>\n
by reference to an eventuality of premature termination, I would still<\/p>\n
point out that      petition for ejectment could be resisted as not<\/p>\n
maintainable, if only the right to remain in possession is protected by<\/p>\n
term of the contract. Such a right could legitimately exist by a term of<\/p>\n
lease for a certain specified period and when the landlord could be<\/p>\n
prevented before the expiry of the period by filing a petition.<\/p>\n
             3.    One does not need to grope too far or too long to say<\/p>\n
that such a right does not exist for a tenant in a case where the entry into<\/p>\n
possession through an instrument which the law requires shall be<\/p>\n
registered but which is unregistered. The requirement of registration<\/p>\n
comes through the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act which<\/p>\n
states under Section 107 that lease of immovable property from year to<\/p>\n
year or a term exceeding one year or reserving an early rent could be<\/p>\n
made only by a registered instrument.           Section 17(1)(d) of the<\/p>\n
Registration Act mandates that the lessee of immovable property from<\/p>\n
year to year or for any term exceeding one year or reserving an early rent<\/p>\n
shall be required to be compulsory registered.         The effect of non-<\/p>\n
registration of a document that is compulsorily registerable is contained<\/p>\n
through Section 49 of the Act that interdicts that it shall not affect any<\/p>\n
immovable property or confer any power to adopt or be received as<\/p>\n
evidence of any transaction affecting such property or conferring such<\/p>\n
power. It is admitted on all fours that an exception provided under<\/p>\n
Section 49 is not attracted to this case. To state the obvious that an<\/p>\n
exception which could still be attracted would be a right of a person to<\/p>\n
prove the character of possession as a collateral purpose to the lease. It
\n Civil Revision No.5547 of 2008                             -4-<\/span><\/p>\n
would happen in case the status as a tenant itself is denied and then it<\/p>\n
shall be permissible for the person affected to show that his possession is<\/p>\n
that of a tenant.     In this case, the petition is filed admitting the<\/p>\n
defendant’s status as a tenant. The term of lease prescribed in the lease<\/p>\n
deed on which the tenant relies on is through an instrument dated<\/p>\n
01.07.1992 that prescribes 20 years period commencing from the date of<\/p>\n
completion of the renovation of the building which the tenant was<\/p>\n
authorized to do. Admittedly such renovation had been done and the<\/p>\n
contention of the tenant was that he was entitled to continue in<\/p>\n
possession for 20 years and that would not             occasion before the<\/p>\n
completion of 2013.\n<\/p>\n
             4.     The learned Senior counsel for the petitioner relies on<\/p>\n
the decision of this Court in Basant Lal and others Versus Ramji Dass<\/p>\n
(deceased) through L.R’s and others- 1990 Civil Court Cases 377<\/p>\n
(P&H), that an unregistered deed of partition would not bar a person<\/p>\n
from ascertaining the nature of possession. I have already pointed out<\/p>\n
that the character of possession is the most outstanding example to the<\/p>\n
exception provided under Section 49 of the Registration Act. I have also<\/p>\n
held that the respondent’s status as a tenant itself is not denied and that is<\/p>\n
the reason why the landlord has invoked the provisions of the Rent Act.<\/p>\n
If the term of lease for a period in excess of one year would require<\/p>\n
registration and as in this case, the documents spells out a lease period of<\/p>\n
20 years, it is not admittedly registered then the inescapable consequence<\/p>\n
is that it will not operate affect the immovable property, which he seeks<\/p>\n
to transfer by lease. Any more than permissibility of the character of
\n Civil Revision No.5547 of 2008                                -5-<\/span><\/p>\n
possession of the respondent as a tenant, the right of lease shall be seen<\/p>\n
only in the context of the tenant having tendered the rent to the landlord<\/p>\n
and the landlord having received the rent from the tenant. In such a<\/p>\n
situation, the receipt of rent itself constitutes the creation of lease and the<\/p>\n
possession held by such a tenant shall be a tenant from month to month.<\/p>\n
Here it is not the tenure of lease that protects possession but it is a<\/p>\n
statutory right of a tenant to stay in possession under the East Punjab<\/p>\n
Urban Rent Restriction Act that comes into operation. If the provisions<\/p>\n
of the Act could be invoked by either party, it only means that such a<\/p>\n
right is available not under the contract of lease itself, but it is a right that<\/p>\n
is invoked under the Act and the trappings of all the provisions will<\/p>\n
come into full sway. The landlord’s right to invoke Section 13-B could<\/p>\n
not in such a situation be defeated. The defence to the petition as not<\/p>\n
maintainable by the reliance on a document which is inadmissible is<\/p>\n
under such circumstances not tenable at all.\n<\/p>\n
             5.     The other defence that the tenant took up was that the<\/p>\n
landlord was guilty of suppression of not disclosing other properties<\/p>\n
which he was possessed of. According to the learned Senior counsel, the<\/p>\n
averment in the petition was only that the landlord was not possessed of<\/p>\n
any other similar building. The averments in the petition, inter alia, are<\/p>\n
“that the petitioner is not in possession of any other similar premises at<\/p>\n
Jalandhar city nor he has vacated any such building within the limits of<\/p>\n
Municipal Corporation, Jalandhar after the coming into force of East<\/p>\n
Punjab Urban Rent Restrict Act.”        The qualifying expression found in<\/p>\n
the petition of the petitioner not owning “any other similar premises”.
\n Civil Revision No.5547 of 2008                          -6-<\/span><\/p>\n
According to learned counsel assumes significance that it would only<\/p>\n
mean that the landlord concedes that he has other buildings also but<\/p>\n
denies availability of similar buildings. If the tenant had in his<\/p>\n
application for leave contended that the landlord indeed owns some other<\/p>\n
premises, it would obtain some credibility to his defence. On the other<\/p>\n
hand, the tenant has adopted a defence that in my view is only a<\/p>\n
moonshine. His response to the averments referred to above as contained<\/p>\n
in paragraph 4 of his petition seeking for leave is that the ownership<\/p>\n
particulars of the landlord of other building would require further probe.<\/p>\n
A landlord cannot say anything more than the non-availability of any<\/p>\n
other premises. A negative fact could be shown to be false only by a<\/p>\n
positive assertion of existence of some property which would dis-entitle<\/p>\n
the landlord to invoke the said provisions. In my view, the attribute of a<\/p>\n
malafide intent of a landlord could be made if only he is shown to have<\/p>\n
any other building. The inference from the statement of the landlord that<\/p>\n
he does not own any other similar premises as meaning that he owns<\/p>\n
premises but not only similar to the same as in the occupation of the<\/p>\n
tenant is an attempt to bring in a needless obfuscation in language and an<\/p>\n
attempt to split hair on a matter of syntax in a language that is still<\/p>\n
foreign to us. With all its normal understanding that the sentence would<\/p>\n
admit of, the landlord must be understood as saying that he has no other<\/p>\n
building. The word ‘similar’ is merely an expression in superfluity in the<\/p>\n
context that cannot be stretched out beyond logic and beyond what the<\/p>\n
sentence normally means.\n<\/p>\n
            6.    The learned Senior counsel points out to the reasoning
\n Civil Revision No.5547 of 2008                            -7-<\/span><\/p>\n
adopted by the Rent Controller that since the landlord was stated to<\/p>\n
be a NRI and he has disclosed by an averment in the petition his need<\/p>\n
and further that he came with a qualification of “specified landlord” by<\/p>\n
being an owner of the building for more than five years prior to the filing<\/p>\n
of the petition, the bona fides shall have to be immediately inferred.<\/p>\n
Again, I have no difficulty in accepting the contention of the learned<\/p>\n
Senior counsel that the decision of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in Baldev<\/p>\n
Singh Bejwa Versus Monish Saini-2006 AIR (SC) 59, puts it up<\/p>\n
beyond any pale of controversy that by a proper reading of Section 18(5)<\/p>\n
that requires the Rent Controller to exercise his power whether to grant a<\/p>\n
leave or not, the Court shall be satisfied that the need of the landlord<\/p>\n
clearly existed. The Rent Controller that examines a petition for leave<\/p>\n
himself has to be first satisfied that the petitioner has stated in the<\/p>\n
petition what entitled him to invoke Section 13-B and that nothing in the<\/p>\n
Section that enables the landlord to invoke the said Section is lacking in<\/p>\n
the petition in the necessary averments. The Court shall then see<\/p>\n
whenever it falls within its ken, any defence that would require an<\/p>\n
adjudication by permitting the tenant to file his written statement exists,<\/p>\n
it shall go through a process of trial before rendering an adjudication.<\/p>\n
The crucial time when the Court would do that exercise is when the Rent<\/p>\n
Controller finds that the leave to defend petition discloses that element of<\/p>\n
doubt in the contentions of the landlord that would merit consideration<\/p>\n
through a full-fledged trial. In this context, the need of the landlord is<\/p>\n
not merely to be presumed at all times but if the issue whether the<\/p>\n
requirement of the accommodation of the landlord or his dependent is
\n Civil Revision No.5547 of 2008                           -8-<\/span><\/p>\n
genuine or not it shall be examined in the context of what is stated in the<\/p>\n
written statement. The need could be shown as such, but not merely a<\/p>\n
desire or a mere wish to secure eviction if it was pointed out that the<\/p>\n
landlord did in fact own other premises and there was no justification for<\/p>\n
applying for eviction. I have already extracted the defence in relation to<\/p>\n
the need in paragraph 4 of the written statement that merely states that it<\/p>\n
could require a probe without setting out any tangible information that<\/p>\n
could even excite the minimal suspicion about the need. If in such a<\/p>\n
situation, the tenant is unable to give any credible information that could<\/p>\n
make the Court believe the landlord’s need was not at least prima facie<\/p>\n
shown then the decision of this Court and of the Hon’ble Supreme Court<\/p>\n
in relation to the presumption that is available comes into operation. If<\/p>\n
on the bare statement of the landlord that he requires the premises, the<\/p>\n
Court cannot presume the need to be genuine. Such a presumption<\/p>\n
becomes available immediately after examining the defence that nothing<\/p>\n
is disclosed about the availability of other property or other<\/p>\n
circumstances which could rise a cloud of doubt over such a<\/p>\n
presumption.\n<\/p>\n
            7.     For the sake of completion of all the points urged by<\/p>\n
the learned Senior counsel, it has to be seen that even the decisions<\/p>\n
which he relies on in Mrs. Kushal Takhar Versus Gurinder Singh-<\/p>\n
2009(1) RCR (Civil) 629, where the Court held that a leave to defend<\/p>\n
shall be granted to a tenant if the landlord was found in occupation of<\/p>\n
other accommodation. It is one thing for a tenant to prove or contend<\/p>\n
that the landlord owns another property or when the landlord himself
\n Civil Revision No.5547 of 2008                             -9-<\/span><\/p>\n
admitted that he had owned another property but quite another for a<\/p>\n
tenant to say that whether the landlord owns any other property would<\/p>\n
require a probe to merit a chance for filing his statement after the grant of<\/p>\n
leave. I have no doubt in my mind that the statement gives no clue to the<\/p>\n
Court that the landlord has any other property to disentitle him to apply<\/p>\n
under Section 13-B or doubt his requirement. The decision of Hon’ble<\/p>\n
the Supreme Court in Modern Hotel, Gudur, represented by<\/p>\n
M.N.Narayanan Versus K.Radhakrishnaiah and others-AIR 1989<\/p>\n
Supreme Court 1510, refers to a situation when a contractual tenancy<\/p>\n
cannot be put an end to by resort to Rent Control Act even before the<\/p>\n
tenure of lease has run itself out. This is not a proposition that would find<\/p>\n
its application in this case since the tenure of lease beyond a period of<\/p>\n
one year through an unregistered instrument cannot be operative and<\/p>\n
hence can not outstrip the requirement of the landlord to apply under<\/p>\n
Section 13-B for the reasons that I have enumerated above. The<\/p>\n
inadmissibility of the document would render the defence vulnerable and<\/p>\n
takeaway the right of the tenant to contend that his right of lease existed<\/p>\n
till the completion of 20 years period. The decision of Hon’ble the<\/p>\n
Supreme Court in Firm Sardari Lal Vishwa Nath and others Versus<\/p>\n
Pritam Singh-AIR 1978 Supreme Court 1518, laying down the law<\/p>\n
that in the event of violation of the term of a contract relating to lease,<\/p>\n
there is a requirement to issue a notice under Section 106 is not again a<\/p>\n
decision that could support the contention of the tenant for the Hon’ble<\/p>\n
Supreme Court dealt with a situation of the primacy of a contractual<\/p>\n
tenant to hold his tenement till the lease period is completed but it shall
\n Civil Revision No.5547 of 2008                            – 10 –<\/span><\/p>\n
not avail to the tenant in this case here, since the tenant is only a<\/p>\n
statutory tenant and being a amenable to the provisions of Section 13-B.<\/p>\n
            8.     The length of discussion in the judgment shall not be<\/p>\n
taken to infer that the tenant’s defence was formidable which could not<\/p>\n
be thrown over board and it required to be examined in depth after leave<\/p>\n
to defend is granted to the tenant for a full-fledged trial. The elaboration<\/p>\n
has been occasioned by elaborate arguments of the learned Senior<\/p>\n
counsel. The order of the Rent Controller would require a modification<\/p>\n
in that it has ordered eviction summarily by rejecting the leave to defend<\/p>\n
petition filed by the tenant. Section 18(4) mandates that the Court on<\/p>\n
examination the affidavit stating the ground on which the tenant seems to<\/p>\n
contest the application, while still disallowing the leave, is bound to<\/p>\n
obtain the statement made by the “specified landlord” in the application<\/p>\n
for eviction and then pass an order if ground exists for evicting the<\/p>\n
tenant. That is an additional duty of the Court to see all the requirements<\/p>\n
under Section 13-B are fully satisfied. The order of the Rent Controller<\/p>\n
rejecting the leave to defend is upheld and the matter is remitted to the<\/p>\n
Rent Controller only for recording the statement of the landlord and<\/p>\n
appraise the petition on its merits as disclosed through the documents<\/p>\n
and then pass appropriate orders. The Court shall in such an eventuality<\/p>\n
consider the fact that the tenant is purported to have effected substantial<\/p>\n
improvements and that he has been running the business for more than<\/p>\n
18 years. A plea for consideration of time for eviction which the placed<\/p>\n
before me by the learned counsel for the petitioner does not require to be<\/p>\n
addressed in the light of the matter being remitted to Rent Controller for
\n Civil Revision No.5547 of 2008                           – 11 –<\/span><\/p>\n
consideration of the issue of the order of eviction.\n<\/p>\n
             9.    The Civil Revision is disposed of in the above terms.<\/p>\n
                                                       (K.KANNAN)
\n                                                          JUDGE
\n04.05.2009
\nsanjeev\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court M.R.F.Limited And Another vs S.Major Singh Purewal on 4 May, 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.5547 of 2008 Date of decision: 04.05.2009 M.R.F.Limited and another …Petitioners versus S.Major Singh Purewal …Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN Present: Mr. Kanwaljit Singh, Senior Advocate with 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-13776","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-punjab-haryana-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nM.R.F.Limited And Another vs S.Major Singh Purewal on 4 May, 2009 - 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-r-f-limited-and-another-vs-s-major-singh-purewal-on-4-may-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"M.R.F.Limited And Another vs S.Major Singh Purewal on 4 May, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-r-f-limited-and-another-vs-s-major-singh-purewal-on-4-may-2009\" \/>\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=\"2009-05-03T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-06-25T05:00:17+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\/m-r-f-limited-and-another-vs-s-major-singh-purewal-on-4-may-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-r-f-limited-and-another-vs-s-major-singh-purewal-on-4-may-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"M.R.F.Limited And Another vs S.Major Singh Purewal on 4 May, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-05-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-06-25T05:00:17+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-r-f-limited-and-another-vs-s-major-singh-purewal-on-4-may-2009\"},\"wordCount\":2954,\"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\/m-r-f-limited-and-another-vs-s-major-singh-purewal-on-4-may-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-r-f-limited-and-another-vs-s-major-singh-purewal-on-4-may-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-r-f-limited-and-another-vs-s-major-singh-purewal-on-4-may-2009\",\"name\":\"M.R.F.Limited And Another vs S.Major Singh Purewal on 4 May, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-05-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-06-25T05:00:17+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-r-f-limited-and-another-vs-s-major-singh-purewal-on-4-may-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-r-f-limited-and-another-vs-s-major-singh-purewal-on-4-may-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-r-f-limited-and-another-vs-s-major-singh-purewal-on-4-may-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"M.R.F.Limited And Another vs S.Major Singh Purewal on 4 May, 2009\"}]},{\"@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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"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.R.F.Limited And Another vs S.Major Singh Purewal on 4 May, 2009 - 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-r-f-limited-and-another-vs-s-major-singh-purewal-on-4-may-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"M.R.F.Limited And Another vs S.Major Singh Purewal on 4 May, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-r-f-limited-and-another-vs-s-major-singh-purewal-on-4-may-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-05-03T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-06-25T05:00:17+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\/m-r-f-limited-and-another-vs-s-major-singh-purewal-on-4-may-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-r-f-limited-and-another-vs-s-major-singh-purewal-on-4-may-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"M.R.F.Limited And Another vs S.Major Singh Purewal on 4 May, 2009","datePublished":"2009-05-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-06-25T05:00:17+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-r-f-limited-and-another-vs-s-major-singh-purewal-on-4-may-2009"},"wordCount":2954,"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\/m-r-f-limited-and-another-vs-s-major-singh-purewal-on-4-may-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-r-f-limited-and-another-vs-s-major-singh-purewal-on-4-may-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-r-f-limited-and-another-vs-s-major-singh-purewal-on-4-may-2009","name":"M.R.F.Limited And Another vs S.Major Singh Purewal on 4 May, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-05-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-06-25T05:00:17+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-r-f-limited-and-another-vs-s-major-singh-purewal-on-4-may-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-r-f-limited-and-another-vs-s-major-singh-purewal-on-4-may-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-r-f-limited-and-another-vs-s-major-singh-purewal-on-4-may-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"M.R.F.Limited And Another vs S.Major Singh Purewal on 4 May, 2009"}]},{"@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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","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\/13776","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=13776"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13776\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=13776"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=13776"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=13776"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}