{"id":137918,"date":"1988-05-06T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1988-05-05T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/piara-lal-vs-kewal-krishan-chopra-on-6-may-1988"},"modified":"2016-04-23T01:41:35","modified_gmt":"2016-04-22T20:11:35","slug":"piara-lal-vs-kewal-krishan-chopra-on-6-may-1988","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/piara-lal-vs-kewal-krishan-chopra-on-6-may-1988","title":{"rendered":"Piara Lal vs Kewal Krishan Chopra on 6 May, 1988"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Piara Lal vs Kewal Krishan Chopra on 6 May, 1988<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1988 AIR 1432, \t\t 1988 SCR Supl. (1) 202<\/div>\n
Author: S Natrajan<\/div>\n
Bench: Natrajan, S. (J)<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nPIARA LAL\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nKEWAL KRISHAN CHOPRA\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT06\/05\/1988\n\nBENCH:\nNATRAJAN, S. (J)\nBENCH:\nNATRAJAN, S. (J)\nMUKHARJI, SABYASACHI (J)\n\nCITATION:\n 1988 AIR 1432\t\t  1988 SCR  Supl. (1) 202\n 1988 SCC  (3)\t51\t  JT 1988 (2)\t502\n 1988 SCALE  (1)1012\n\n\nACT:\n     East Punjab  Urban Rent  Restriction Act, 1949: Section\n13(3)(a) (iii)-Tenant-Eviction\tof-On ground premises became\nunsafe and  unfit for  human habitation-Falling down of roof\nin one\troom-Whether sufficient\t for a\tdeclaration building\nunsafe and unfit for human habitation.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n     The suit premises consisted of four rooms in the ground\nfloor where the appellant-tenant was running his office. One\nroom in\t the first  floor  was\tin  the\t possession  of\t the\nlandlord-respondent. The  roof of  one room in the rear side\nof the\tleased portion\thad fallen  down, and  it  has\tbeen\nreplaced by the appellant after obtaining orders of the Rent\nController under  Section 12  of the  East Punjab Urban Rent\nRestriction Act, 1949.\n     The landlord  filed a  petition  for  eviction  on\t the\nground of  bona fide requirement of the premises for his own\nuse and\t occupation, and  change of  user of the premises by\nthe tenant.  As he  failed before  the Rent  Controller,  he\npreferred an appeal and during the pendency of the appeal he\nobtained the  court's order  and amended  the  petition\t and\nraised an  additional ground  under Section 13(3)(a)(iii) of\nthe Act,  seeking eviction  of the tenant on the ground that\nthe leased  premises had  become unsafe\t and unfit for human\nhabitation. The Appellate Authority called for a findings on\nthis additional\t ground from  the Rent\tController  and\t the\nfinding went  against the  landlord. The Appellate Authority\nconcurred with\tthe Rent  Controller on the said finding and\ndismissed the appeal.\n     The respondent  preferred\ta  Civil  Revision  Petition\nbefore the  High Court which sustained the case, and ordered\nthe eviction of the appellant under Section 13(3)(a)(iii) of\nthe Act. The High Court came to the finding that the falling\ndown of\t the roof  of one  of the rooms afforded by itself a\ncause of  action to  the landlord  to seek  eviction of\t the\ntenant under  the said section, and the said cause of action\nwould subsist even if the tenant had repaired the roof under\norders of the Rent Controller under Section 12 of the Act.\n203\n     In the  appeal to\tthis Court  by\tthe  tenant  it\t was\ncontended  that\t  the  Rent  Controller\t and  the  Appellate\nAuthority had  concurrently  found  that  the  building\t was\nneither unsafe\tnor unfit  for human  habitation and as such\nthe High  Court was not justified in interferring with those\nfindings especially  when they\twere findings  of  fact.  On\nbehalf of  the respondent,  the appeal\twas contested on the\nground that  the falling  down of  the roof  in a  room\t was\nindicative of  the damage  condition of\t the  building\tand,\ntherefore, the\tHigh Court  was fully  justified in ordering\neviction, and  that the\t replacement  of  the  roof  by\t the\nappellant would\t not extinguish\t the right which had accrued\nto  the\t respondent  under  Section  13(3)(a)(iii)  to\tseek\nrecovery of the possession of the leased premises.\n     Allowing the appeal,\n^\n     HELD: 1.  The High\t Court was not justified in allowing\nthe revision  and directing  eviction of the appellant under\nSection 13(3)(a)(iii). [206H]\n     2. The High Court proceeded on the erroneous assumption\nthat the  falling down\tof the\troof in\t one room was itself\nsufficient to warrant a finding that the entire building had\nbecome unfit  and unsafe for human habitation and called for\na declaration to that effect. [207F]\n     In the  instant case,  the admitted position was except\nfor the\t roof in  one of  the rooms  falling down,  no other\ndamage\tto   the  building   was   noticed   and   in\tsuch\ncircumstances,\tthere\tis  no\tscope  for  holding  that  a\nsubstantial or\tmajor part  of the building had become unfit\nand unsafe  for human  habitation  and\thence  an  order  of\neviction was called for. [208G-H]\n     3. The  High Court had wrongly assumed that besides the\nfalling down  of  the  roof,  one  of  the  walls  has\talso\ncrumbled. This\tassumption was\ta mistaken  one because\t the\nexpert witnesses  examined during  the trial  by the parties\nhave spoken about the good condition of three walls alone of\nthe room and not the fourth because they are the outer walls\nof the\troom while the fourth wall was a common wall for the\nroom in question, and the adjoining room and hence there was\nno need to certify its good condition. [205E-F]\n     4. The High Court had also failed to notice two factors\nof relevance:  viz. (1)\t that the  respondent had  given his\nconsent to  the Rent  Controller granting  permission  under\nSection 12 of the Act to the appel-\n204\nlant to\t replace the  roof, and\t (2) that  in spite  of\t the\nalleged cause  of action  having arisen\t due to\t the falling\ndown of\t the roof,  the respondent did not seek amendment of\nthe petition  so as to seek eviction of the appellant on the\nadditional ground under Section 13(3)(a)(iii) but instead he\nchose to  prosecute his petition only on the original ground\nfor eviction set forth therein and only after falling before\nthe  Rent   Controller\tand  preferring\t an  appeal  to\t the\nAppellate Authority,  he deemed\t it necessary  to amend\t the\npetition and  ask for  eviction\t of  the  appellant  on\t the\nadditional ground.\t [207C-E]\n     5. The  aforesaid conduct\tof  the\t respondent  clearly\nreveals that he himself has not attached any significance to\nthe falling down of the roof in one of the rooms and has not\nseriously considered  the sustainable  cause of\t action that\nhad arisen  to him  under Section  13(3)(a)(iii) for seeking\neviction of the appellant. [207E-F]\n     Balbir Singh  v. Hari  Ram, AIR 1983 Punjab and Haryana\n132; Chander  Mohini v.\t Jiva Singh,  [1983] 2\tRCJ 523\t and\nSardarni Sampurna Kaur v. Sant Singh & Anr., [1983] PLR 449,\ndistinguished.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
     CIVIL APPELLATE  JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1682 of
\n1984.\n<\/p>\n
     From the  Judgment and  order dated  23.12.1983 of\t the
\nPunjab and  Haryana High  Court in Civil Revision No. 959 of
\n1979<\/span>
\n     V.M. Tarkunde, A.D. Sikri for the Appellant.
\n     Hardev Singh and R.S. Sodhi for the Respondents.
\n     The judgment of the Court was delivered by
\n     NATARAJAN, J.  What falls\tfor  consideration  in\tthis
\nappeal by  special leave by a tenant against the judgment of
\nthe High  Court of Punjab and Haryana in a Civil Revision is
\nwhether the  High  Court  had  transgressed  its  revisional
\npowers in  interfering with the concurrent findings rendered
\nby the\tRent Controller\t and  the  Appellate  Authority\t and
\nordering the  eviction of  the\tappellant  herein  from\t the
\nleased premises\t and secondly  whether the  High  Court\t had
\nerred in  holding that the leased premises had become unsafe
\nand unfit  for human  habitation  as  envisaged\t in  Section
\n13(3)(a)(iii) of  the East  Punjab Urban  Rent Eviction Act,
\n1949 (hereinafter the Act).\n<\/p>\n
205<\/span><\/p>\n
     The respondent’s  petition for  eviction was originally
\nbased on  other grounds such as bona fide requirement of the
\npremises for  own use  and change of user of the premises by
\nthe tenant.  As he  failed before  the Rent  Controller, the
\nrespondent preferred  an appeal\t and during  the pendency of
\nthe appeal  he obtained\t orders and amended the petition and
\nraised an  additional ground under Section 13(3)(a)(iii) for
\nseeking the  eviction  of  the\tappellant  viz.\t the  leased
\npremises had  become unsafe  and unfit for human habitation.
\nThe  Appellate\t Authority  called  for\t a  finding  on\t the
\nadditional ground  from the  Rent Controller and the finding
\nwent  against\tthe  respondent.   The\tAppellate  Authority
\nconcurred with\tthe Rent  Controller on the said finding and
\ndismissed the  appeal. Before  the appellate  Authority\t the
\nrespondent did\tnot seriously  press the original grounds on
\nwhich eviction\twas sought for and laid stress only upon the
\nground\tunder\tSection\t 13(3)(a)(iii)\t of  the   Act.\t The
\nrespondent then\t preferred a Civil Revision wherein the High
\nCourt sustained\t his case  and ordered\tthe eviction  of the
\nappellant under\t Section 13(3)(a)(iii) and hence the present
\nappeal by the appellant-tenant.\n<\/p>\n
     Section  13(3)(a)(iii)  was  resorted  to\tfor  seeking
\neviction of  the tenant\t on the footing that one room in the
\nrear-side of  the leased  premises had\tfallen down.  We may
\nstate, even at this juncture that the High Court had wrongly
\nassumed that  besides the  falling down\t of the roof, one of
\nthe walls  had also crumbled. This assumption was a mistaken
\none because  the expert\t witnesses examined during the trial
\nby the parties have spoken about the good condition of three
\nwalls alone  of the room and not the fourth because they are
\nthe outer  walls of  the room  while the  fourth wall  was a
\ncommon wall  for the room in question and the adjoining room
\nand hence  there was  no need to certify its good condition.
\nIt was\ttherefore wrong\t for the  High Court to have assumed
\nthat only three walls of the room were in good condition and
\nnot the fourth wall.\n<\/p>\n
     The  High\tCourt  deemed  it  necessary  to  allow\t the
\nRevision and  set aside the order of the Rent Controller and
\nthe Appellate Authority because of its view that the falling
\ndown of\t the roof  of one  of the rooms afforded by itself a
\ncause of  action to  the landlord  to seek  eviction of\t the
\ntenant under  Section 13(3)(a)(iii)  and the  said cause  of
\naction would  subsist even  if the  tenant had\trepaired the
\nroof under  orders of  the Rent Controller, under Section 12
\nof the\tAct. It is necessary to mention here that during the
\npendency of  the proceedings before the Rent Controller, the
\nappellant obtained  the permission  of the  Rent  Controller
\nunder Section 12 to replace the roof fallen down and re-\n<\/p>\n
206<\/span><\/p>\n
cover the  cost from the respondent since the respondent had
\nfailed to  do the  work himself.  The High Court relied upon
\ntwo decision  Balbir Singh  v. Hari Ram, AIR 1983 Punjab and
\nHaryana 132  and Chander  Mohini v. Jiva Singh, [1983] 2 RCJ
\n523 for\t holding that  once a  cause of\t action ensued under
\nSection 13(3)(a)(iii),\tit  would  subsist  inspite  of\t any
\nrepairs effected  by the  tenant. It  also relied on another
\ndecision Sardarni Sampurna Kaur v. Sant Singh & Anr., [1983]
\nPLR 449\t for holding  that even\t if the rest of the building
\nwas in\tgood condition,\t the falling down of the roof of one
\nroom would  constitute\tsufficient  material  to  sustain  a
\nlandlord’s claim  under Section 13(3)(a)(iii) of the Act for
\nseeking the tenant’s eviction.\n<\/p>\n
     A few  facts may  now be  set out.\t The leased  portion
\ncomprises of  four rooms  in  the  ground  floor  where\t the
\nappellant is  running his  office. There  is a\troom in\t the
\nfirst floor  in the possession of the respondent himself but
\nwe are\tnot concerned  with it. It is common ground that the
\nroof of\t one room in the rear-side of the leased portion had
\nfallen down  and it had been replaced by the appellant after
\nobtaining orders  of the  Rent Controller  under Section 12.
\nThe appellant’s\t contention is\tthat the falling down of the
\nroof in one of the four rooms would not by itself render the
\nentire building\t unsafe and  unfit for\thuman habitation  as
\nenvisaged under\t Section 13(3)(a)(iii)\tof the\tAct and,  as
\nsuch, the  High Court  had erred  in ordering eviction under
\nthe said  provision. It\t was further  urged  that  the\tRent
\nController and\tthe  Appellate\tAuthority  had\tconcurrently
\nfound that  the building  was neither  unsafe nor  unfit for
\nhuman  habitation  and\tas  such  the  High  Court  was\t not
\njustified in interfering with those findings especially when
\nthey were  findings of\tfact. In  reply to  the\t above\tsaid
\ncontentions, the  learned counsel  for the respondent argued
\nthat the  falling down\tof the roof in a room was indicative
\nof the damaged condition of the building and, therefore, the
\nHigh Court  was fully  justified in ordering the eviction of
\nthe appellant under Section 13(3)(a)(iii) of the Act. It was
\nfurther urged  that the\t replacement  of  the  roof  by\t the
\nappellant would\t not extinguish\t the right which had accrued
\nto  the\t respondent  under  Section  13(3)(a)(iii)  to\tseek
\nrecovery of  possession of  the leased premises and the High
\nCourt had rightly adverted to this aspect of the matter also
\nwhile allowing the revision filed by the respondent.\n<\/p>\n
     On a careful consideration of the matter with reference
\nto the\tcontentions put-forth by the learned counsel for the
\nparties, we  are clearly  of opinion that the High Court was
\nnot justified  in allowing  the revision  and directing\t the
\neviction of the appellant under Section 13(3)(a)(iii). It is
\ntrue that a roof of one of the rooms on the rear-side
\n207<\/span>
\nhad fallen  down and  required replacement  but there was no
\nevidence whatever  that the entire building or a substantial
\nportion of  it was  in a  damaged condition and consequently
\nthe building  as a  whole had  become unfit  and unsafe\t for
\nhuman habitation. Unless the evidence warranted an inference
\nthat the  falling down\tof the\troof in\t one room  was fully
\nindicative of  the damaged  and weak condition of the entire
\nbuilding and  that the\tcollapse  of  the  roof\t was  not  a
\nlocalised event,  we fail  to see  how the  High Court could
\nhave concluded\tthat the  entire building  had become unsafe
\nand unfit  for human  habitation. In fact, the appellant had
\nreplaced the  roof only\t at a  cost of about Rs.200 and this
\nwould independently  show that\tthe damage that had occurred
\ncould not  have been of a serious or disquieting nature. The
\nHigh Court  has failed\tto notice  two factors of relevance,
\nviz., (1)  that the  respondent had given his consent to the
\nRent Controller\t granting permission under Section 12 of the
\nAct to\tthe appellant  to replace  the\troof  and  (2)\tthat
\ninspite of  the alleged cause of action having arisen due to
\nthe  falling  down  of\tthe,roof,  the\trespondent  did\t not
\nimmediately seek  amendment of\tthe petition  so as  to seek
\neviction of  the appellant  on the  additional ground  under
\nSection 13(3)(a)(iii)  but instead he chose to prosecute his
\npetition only on the original grounds for eviction set forth
\ntherein and  only after\t failing before\t the Rent Controller
\nand preferring\tan appeal  to the  Appellate  Authority,  he
\ndeemed it  necessary to\t amend\tthe  petition  and  ask\t for
\neviction of  the appellant  or the  additional ground  under
\nSection\t 13(3)(a)(iii).\t  The  above  said  conduct  of\t the
\nrespondent would  clearly reveal  that he  himself  had\t not
\nattached any significance to the falling down of the roof in
\none of\tthe rooms  and had  not seriously  considered that a
\nsustainable cause of action had accrued to him under Section
\n13(3)(a)(iii) for seeking the eviction of the appellant. The
\nHigh Court  has not  only failed to appreciate these factors
\nbut has\t also proceeded on the erroneous assumption that the
\nfalling\t down  of  the\troof  in  one  room  was  by  itself
\nsufficient to warrant a finding that the entire building had
\nbecome unfit  and unsafe for human habitation and called for
\na declaration  to that\teffect. It is this basic error which
\nhas affected  the reasoning  of the High Court lead the High
\nCourt to  apply the  ratio laid\t down in certain cases where
\nthe facts and circumstances were entirely different.\n<\/p>\n
     What arose\t for consideration  in Balbir  Singh’s\tcase
\n(supra) was  whether a\ttenant would  stand deprived  of his
\nright under  Section 12 to carry out repairs of the tenanted
\npremises by  reason of\tan application\tfiled by  a landlord
\nunder Section  13(3)(c) of the Haryana Urban Control on Rent
\nand Eviction  Act (Corresponding to Section 13(3)(a)(iii) of
\nthe East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction ‘Act, 1949) and con-\n<\/p>\n
208<\/span><\/p>\n
versely whether a landlord would stand deprived of his right
\nto seek\t eviction of  his tenant  under Section\t 13(3)(c) by
\nreason of  an order  passed under  Section 12 empowering the
\ntenant to carry out repairs to the tenanted premises. It was
\nin that\t context, the  High Court held that the two sections
\noperated in  their respective  spheres\tand  they  were\t not
\nmutually destructive  of each other and consequently, when a
\nright accrued  to a  landlord under  Section 13(3)(c) of the
\nHaryana Act  to seek  eviction of  a tenant, the right would
\nnot get\t extinguished on  account of  an order\tpassed under
\nSection 12 of the Act. In other words, it was held that once
\na cause of action had arisen for a landlord to seek eviction
\nunder Section  13(3)(c) of  the Haryana\t Act that  the\tsaid
\ncause of  action would ensure to the benefit of the landlord
\nin spite of the tenant effecting repairs to the building for
\nhis  benefit  in  pursuance  of\t permission  obtained  under
\nSection 12  of the  Act. The decision does not lay down that
\neach and  every damage\tto a  building, without reference to
\nthe seriousness\t of its\t nature or  to the  condition of the
\nbuilding as  a whole  would by\titself entitle a landlord to
\ninvoke Section 13(3)(a)(iii) to seek eviction of the tenant.
\nIn Chander Mohini’s case (supra) wherein Balbir Singh’s case
\n(supra) was  followed, it  was held  that if the tenants had
\npulled down the roof of one of the rooms under their tenancy
\nand replaced  the same,\t obviously for their own convenience
\nand for\t pre-empting the landlord from filing a petition for
\neviction under\tSection 13(3)(a)(iii),\tthe  landlord  would
\nundoubtedly,  acquire\ta  cause  of  action  under  Section
\n13(3)(a)(iii) as  soon as  the tenants\thad pulled  down the
\nroof of the room and his rights could not be defeated by the
\ntenants\t by  the  replacement  of  the\troof  of  their\t own
\nvolition. The  other decision  in Sardarni  Sampurna Kaur v.
\nSant Singh  has also  no relevance  because it\twas found in
\nthat case  that even  though the portion under the ocupation
\nof the\ttenant was  in\ta  sound  condition,  a\t substantial
\nportion of  the composite  building  had  become  unfit\t and
\nunsafe for  human habitation.  In that\tsituation, the\tHigh
\nCourt held  that what  was relevant  for  consideration\t for
\npassing an order of eviction under Section 13(3)(a)(iii) was
\nthe condition  of the  building viewed as a whole and not in
\nparts or  blocks. In the instant case, the admitted position
\nis that\t except for  the roof  in one  of the  rooms falling
\ndown, no  other damage\tto the\tbuilding was  noticed and in
\nsuch circumstances,  there is  no scope\t for holding  that a
\nsubstantial or\tmajor part  of the building had become unfit
\nand unsafe  for human  habitation  and\thence  an  order  of
\neviction was  called for.  It is  therefore obvious that the
\nratio laid  down in  the earlier  decisions were  not at all
\nattracted to  the facts\t of the\t case and the High Court had
\nwrongly applied them because of its erroneous assumptions.\n<\/p>\n
209<\/span><\/p>\n
     Learned counsel  for the  respondent tried\t to  contend
\nthat apart  from the building having become unsafe and unfit
\nfor  human   habitation,  the  respondent  had\talso  sought
\neviction  on   the  ground  he\twas  genuinely\tin  need  of
\nadditional  accommodation   but\t the   Appellant  Court\t had
\nunjustly  rejected   the  plea\tby  saying  that  since\t the
\nrespondent was\tjointly living\twith his  son, he can secure
\nadditional accommodation  from out  of the  portion  in\t his
\nson’s  occupation.   We\t do  not  find\tany  merit  in\tthis
\ncontention because  the requirement  of the building on this
\nground was  not canvassed  before the  High Court.  Even the
\nAppellant  Authority  has  observed  that  the\tonly  ground
\npressed for seeking eviction of the tenant was under Section
\n13(3)(a)(iii)  and   the  other\t grounds  were\tnot  pressed
\nseriously and  only incidentally  a halfhearted argument was
\nadvanced regarding the requirement of the leased premises by
\nway of additional accommodation.\n<\/p>\n
     In the  result, the  appeal is allowed and the judgment
\nof the High Court is set aside. The respondent’s application
\nfor eviction  of  the  appellant  will\tstand  dismissed  as
\nordered by  the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority.
\nThe parties  are, however,  directed to\t pay and  bear their
\nrespective costs.\n<\/p>\n
     N.V.K.\t\t\t\t     Appeal allowed.\n210<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Piara Lal vs Kewal Krishan Chopra on 6 May, 1988 Equivalent citations: 1988 AIR 1432, 1988 SCR Supl. (1) 202 Author: S Natrajan Bench: Natrajan, S. (J) PETITIONER: PIARA LAL Vs. RESPONDENT: KEWAL KRISHAN CHOPRA DATE OF JUDGMENT06\/05\/1988 BENCH: NATRAJAN, S. (J) BENCH: NATRAJAN, S. (J) MUKHARJI, SABYASACHI (J) CITATION: 1988 […]<\/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":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-137918","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nPiara Lal vs Kewal Krishan Chopra on 6 May, 1988 - 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\/piara-lal-vs-kewal-krishan-chopra-on-6-may-1988\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Piara Lal vs Kewal Krishan Chopra on 6 May, 1988 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/piara-lal-vs-kewal-krishan-chopra-on-6-may-1988\" \/>\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=\"1988-05-05T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-04-22T20:11:35+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=\"16 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/piara-lal-vs-kewal-krishan-chopra-on-6-may-1988#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/piara-lal-vs-kewal-krishan-chopra-on-6-may-1988\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Piara Lal vs Kewal Krishan Chopra on 6 May, 1988\",\"datePublished\":\"1988-05-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-04-22T20:11:35+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/piara-lal-vs-kewal-krishan-chopra-on-6-may-1988\"},\"wordCount\":2353,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/piara-lal-vs-kewal-krishan-chopra-on-6-may-1988#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/piara-lal-vs-kewal-krishan-chopra-on-6-may-1988\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/piara-lal-vs-kewal-krishan-chopra-on-6-may-1988\",\"name\":\"Piara Lal vs Kewal Krishan Chopra on 6 May, 1988 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1988-05-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-04-22T20:11:35+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/piara-lal-vs-kewal-krishan-chopra-on-6-may-1988#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/piara-lal-vs-kewal-krishan-chopra-on-6-may-1988\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/piara-lal-vs-kewal-krishan-chopra-on-6-may-1988#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Piara Lal vs Kewal Krishan Chopra on 6 May, 1988\"}]},{\"@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":"Piara Lal vs Kewal Krishan Chopra on 6 May, 1988 - 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\/piara-lal-vs-kewal-krishan-chopra-on-6-may-1988","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Piara Lal vs Kewal Krishan Chopra on 6 May, 1988 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/piara-lal-vs-kewal-krishan-chopra-on-6-may-1988","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1988-05-05T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-04-22T20:11:35+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":"16 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/piara-lal-vs-kewal-krishan-chopra-on-6-may-1988#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/piara-lal-vs-kewal-krishan-chopra-on-6-may-1988"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Piara Lal vs Kewal Krishan Chopra on 6 May, 1988","datePublished":"1988-05-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-04-22T20:11:35+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/piara-lal-vs-kewal-krishan-chopra-on-6-may-1988"},"wordCount":2353,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/piara-lal-vs-kewal-krishan-chopra-on-6-may-1988#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/piara-lal-vs-kewal-krishan-chopra-on-6-may-1988","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/piara-lal-vs-kewal-krishan-chopra-on-6-may-1988","name":"Piara Lal vs Kewal Krishan Chopra on 6 May, 1988 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1988-05-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-04-22T20:11:35+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/piara-lal-vs-kewal-krishan-chopra-on-6-may-1988#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/piara-lal-vs-kewal-krishan-chopra-on-6-may-1988"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/piara-lal-vs-kewal-krishan-chopra-on-6-may-1988#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Piara Lal vs Kewal Krishan Chopra on 6 May, 1988"}]},{"@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\/137918","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=137918"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/137918\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=137918"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=137918"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=137918"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}