{"id":143107,"date":"1971-02-25T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1971-02-24T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chhote-lal-vs-shri-kewal-krishan-on-25-february-1971"},"modified":"2017-10-20T18:22:04","modified_gmt":"2017-10-20T12:52:04","slug":"chhote-lal-vs-shri-kewal-krishan-on-25-february-1971","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chhote-lal-vs-shri-kewal-krishan-on-25-february-1971","title":{"rendered":"Chhote Lal vs Shri Kewal Krishan on 25 February, 1971"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Chhote Lal vs Shri Kewal Krishan on 25 February, 1971<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_citations\">Equivalent citations: 1971 AIR  987, \t\t  1971 SCR  (3) 855<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: V Bhargava<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: Bhargava, Vishishtha<\/div>\n<pre>           PETITIONER:\nCHHOTE LAL\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSHRI KEWAL KRISHAN\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT25\/02\/1971\n\nBENCH:\nBHARGAVA, VISHISHTHA\nBENCH:\nBHARGAVA, VISHISHTHA\nDUA, I.D.\n\nCITATION:\n 1971 AIR  987\t\t  1971 SCR  (3) 855\n 1971 SCC  (1) 623\n\n\nACT:\nEast   Punjab  Urban  Rent  Restriction\t Act  III  of\t1949\nApplication-under s. 13 for ejectment of  tenant-Electricity\ncharges whether part of rent for the purpose of\t determining\narrears.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nThe   appellant\t was  the  tenant  of  premises\t  owned\t  by\nrespondent.  He was ordered to be ejected from the  premises\non  the ground that he was in arrears of rent for more\tthan\nthree  months  and  did not tender them even  at  the  first\nhearing\t by  the  Rent Controller  of  the  application\t for\nejectment presented by the landlord under s. 13 of the\tEast\nPunjab Urban Rent Restriction Act III of 1949.\tThe District\nJudge  dismissed the tenant's appeal.  In revision the\tHigh\nCourt  of Punjab and Haryana proceeded on the basis that  on\nthe  date of application which was made on  22nd  September,\n1964,  the  total  arrears due\tfrom  the  tenant  including\ninterest  and electricity charges amounted to Rs. 497.33  P.\nThe  High  Court was of the view  that\telectricity  charges\nwould  form  part  of  the  rent.   The\t amount\t in  deposit\naccording  to the tenant, came to Rs. 469.  As\tthis  amount\ndid not cover the entire arrears of rent due the tenant\t was\nheld  liable  to ejectment by the High Court.\tThe  present\nappeal was filed by special leave.\nHELD  :\t In  the application filed by the  landlord  it\t was\nnowhere\t stated\t that  the arrears  of\telectricity  charges\nformed\tpart of the rent.  Consequently no issue was  framed\nby  the trial court whether the electricity  charges  formed\npart  of the rent.  On the face of it, there was  no  justi-\nfication  for  accepting  this new point  when\tit  was\t not\npleaded at all in the original application. [857 D]\n Read  correctly even the rent note made it clear  that\t the\nelectricity  charges  could not possibly form  part  of\t the\nrent.  Further the amount due for consumption of electricity\neach  month  could only be known at the end of\tthat  month,\nwhile,\tunder  the  agreement the rent had  to\tbe  paid  in\nadvance.  The charges were variable and would depend on\t the\namount\tof  electricity consumed.  If the  electric  charges\nwere  held  to\tbe. part of the rent it would  lead  to\t the\ninference  that even the rent of the building  was  variable\nand   was   different  each  month.   In   view\t  of   these\ncircumstances  it was clear that the District Judge and\t the\nHigh  Court went wrong in proceeding on the basis  that\t the\nelectric charge formed part of the rent and that non-payment\nof  electric charges due amounted to non-payment of  arrears\nof rent. [857 E-858 D]\nHari  Ram  Jaggi  v.  Des  Rai\tSethi  (1966)  P.L.R.\t431,\ndistinguished.\nThe  High Court had accepted that the amount in deposit\t was\nenough\tto  cover  arrears of rent,  in\t case  the  electric\ncharges\t were  not  treated as part of the  rent.   On\tthis\nfinding, the decision of the High Court upholding the  order\nof  eviction could not be justified.  Further, according  to\nthe  District Judge there was no deposit or tender  even  of\nthe  amount  of Rs. 469 as claimed by the  tenant.   In\t the\nrevision before the High\n85 6\nCourt this finding of the District Judge was assailed by the\ntenant.\t High  Court  did  not\texamine\t the  propriety\t  or\ncorrectness  of this finding, The case, therefore,  must  be\nremanded  to the High Court for determined of  the  question\nwhether\t the tenant had made a proper depot., c r tender  of\nsum of Rs. 469.\t In case he had done so he was not in  areas\nof rent and was not liable to ejectment. [858E-H]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>CIVIL  APPELLATE  JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal  No.  1947  of<br \/>\n1967.\n<\/p>\n<p>Appeal\tby special leave from the judgment and\torder  dated<br \/>\nNovember  20, 1967 of the Punjab and Haryana-High  Court  in<br \/>\nCivil Revision No. 1058 of 1966.\n<\/p>\n<p>R.V.  Pillai, M. L. Aggarwal and N. K. Aggarwal, for  the<br \/>\nappellant.\n<\/p>\n<p>S. P. Sinha and M. V. Goswami, for the respondent.<br \/>\nThe Judgment of the Court was delivered by-<br \/>\nBhargava, J.-This appeal by special leave is by a tenant who<br \/>\nhas been ordered to be ejected on the ground that he was  in<br \/>\narrears\t ,of  rent for more than three months  and  did\t not<br \/>\ntender\tthem  even  ,at\t the  first  hearing  by  the\tRent<br \/>\nController of the application for ejectment presented by the<br \/>\nlandlord  under\t section 13 of the East\t Punjab\t Urban\tRent<br \/>\nRestriction  Act III of 1949.  The High Court of Punjab\t and<br \/>\nHaryana in its judgment stated that, admittedly, the rent of<br \/>\nthe  premises  was fixed at Rs. 20 per month and was  to  be<br \/>\npaid  in advance each month.  In addition, the rent  of\t the<br \/>\nelectricity was to be paid separately.\tIn dealing with\t the<br \/>\ncase,  the  High Court proceeded on the basis that,  on\t the<br \/>\ndate  of the application which was made on  22nd  September,<br \/>\n1964,  the  rent  that was in arrears amounted\tto  Rs.\t 400<br \/>\ncalculated  @ Rs. 20 per mensem.  In addition,\tRs.  22.05P.<br \/>\nwere due as interest on this amount up to that date, and the<br \/>\ncosts  due  could be taken at the figure of  Rs.  25.\tThis<br \/>\ntotals\tto  a  sum of Rs. 447.05P. It was  argued  that,  in<br \/>\naddition,  a  sum  of Rs. 50.28P.  was\tdue  as\t electricity<br \/>\ncharges.   The amount in deposit, according to\tthe  tenant,<br \/>\ncame  to Rs. 469. while the various amounts  due,  mentioned<br \/>\nabove,\tmade up a total of Rs. 497.33P. On these facts,\t the<br \/>\nHigh  Court further was of the view that the amount due\t in<br \/>\nrespect\t of electricity charges will certainly form part  of<br \/>\nthe  rent &#8216;and, relying on an earlier decision of the  same<br \/>\nCourt  in Hari Ram Jaggi v. Des Rai Sethi(1), it held that<br \/>\nthe deposit of Rs.- 469 did not cover the entire arrears  of<br \/>\nrent  due, so that the tenant was liable to  ejectment.\t  On<br \/>\nthis view, the &#8216;High Court upheld the order of the  District<br \/>\nJudge  directing  eviction  of the  tenant  appealing.\tThis<br \/>\nappeal is directed against this border of the High Court.<br \/>\n(1)  1966 P. B. 431.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">\t\t\t    857<\/span><\/p>\n<p>In  deciding this case, neither the District Judge  nor\t the<br \/>\nHigh  Court  took  care\t to examine  the  pleadings  in\t the<br \/>\napplication  for  eviction  put\t forward  by  the  landlord-<br \/>\nrespondent, nor did they try to properly interpret the rent-<br \/>\nnote containing the terms of the tenancy.  In para, 1 of the<br \/>\napplication presented by the landlord, it was clearly stated<br \/>\nthat  &#8220;the  respondent is a tenant of the  petitioner  at  a<br \/>\nmonthly rent of Rs. 20.&#8221; There was no mention at this  stage<br \/>\nthat  there  was any other amount which formed part  of\t the<br \/>\nrent.\tIn  clause (c) of para. 2, it Was stated  that\t&#8220;the<br \/>\nrespondent  has\t installed  a  separate\t meter\twithout\t the<br \/>\nconsent\t of  the petitioner thereby causing  damage  to\t the<br \/>\nproperty and-has failed to pay the electricity charges\tfrom<br \/>\nJanuary,  1963 to November, 1963 (when he got a\t new  meter)<br \/>\nwhich  come to Rs. 50.28nP.&#8221; In this pleading, all that\t was<br \/>\nclaimed\t was  that  the landlord  was  entitled\t to  receive<br \/>\nelectricity charges from the tenant.  It was nowhere  stated<br \/>\nthat these arrears of electricity charges formed part of the<br \/>\nrent.  Consequently, no issue was framed in the trial  Court<br \/>\non the question whether the electricity charges formed part<br \/>\nof the rent or not.  For the first time, the appellate Court<br \/>\ntook  this  point  into\t consideration\tand  held  that\t the<br \/>\nelectricity charges formed part of the rent.  On the face of<br \/>\nit, there was no justification for accepting this new  point<br \/>\nwhen it was not pleaded at all in the original\tapplication.<br \/>\nFurther,  even the rent note itself makes it clear that\t the<br \/>\nelectricity  charges  could not possibly form  part  of\t the<br \/>\nrent.\tThe rent note first mentions that the  appellant  is<br \/>\ntaking\ton rent the premises &#8220;on a monthly rent of  Rs.\t 20,<br \/>\ndouble of Rs. 10, for residential purposes, for a period  of<br \/>\nfive months commencing from 1st May, 1954.&#8221; There-after, the<br \/>\nrent note, as translated in the paper book, shows that there was a<br \/>\n further agreement as under :-\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>\t      &#8220;I  shall pay one month&#8217;s rent in advance\t and<br \/>\n\t      shall  remain  paying  rent  every  month\t  in<br \/>\n\t      advance.\t I shall not sub-let the  entire  or<br \/>\n\t      any portion thereof.  I shall pay the electric<br \/>\n\t      charges  separately.   I shall  not  make\t any<br \/>\n\t      alteration&#8230;&#8230;.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>The  agreement\tto  pay\t the  electric\tcharges\t was,  thus,<br \/>\nseparately  mentioned.\tIn Urdu, the language in  which\t the<br \/>\nrent  note was scribed, the word which has&#8217; been  translated<br \/>\nas chases was &#8220;Kiraya<br \/>\nIt  is because of the use of this word that the\t High  Court<br \/>\nseems  to have held that the electric charges  payable\twere<br \/>\npart  of  the  rent.&#8217; It failed to notice  that\t the  clause<br \/>\nitself said that this amount in respect of electric  charges<br \/>\nwas  to be paid separately.  Further, this was not rent\t for<br \/>\nelectric fittings, but was the amount payable in respect  of<br \/>\nactual electric energy consumed in each &#8216;Month.\t The  amount<br \/>\ndue for consumption of &#8216;electricity each month could only be<br \/>\nknown  at  the end of that month, while, under\tthe  earlier<br \/>\nclause of the agreement, the rent had to be paid<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">858<\/span><br \/>\nin  advance.   On the face of it,  therefore,  the  electric<br \/>\ncharges\t for  a month could not possibly be  paid  with\t the<br \/>\nrent.  These- electric charges could not, consequently\tform<br \/>\npart  of the rent.  The charges were further  variable\t&#8216;and<br \/>\nwould  depend  on the amount of\t electricity  consumed.\t  No<br \/>\nfixed amount was payable in respect of electricity  charges.<br \/>\nIf electric charges were to be held to be part of the  rent,<br \/>\nit  would  lead to the inference that even the rent  of\t the<br \/>\nbuilding was variable and was different each month.  In view<br \/>\nof these circumstances, it is clear that the District  Judge<br \/>\nand the High Court went wrong in preceding on the basis that<br \/>\nthe  electric charges formed part of the rent and that\tnon-<br \/>\npayment\t of electric charges due amounted to non-payment  of<br \/>\narrears of rent.\n<\/p>\n<p>As  we have mentioned earlier, the High Court  followed\t the<br \/>\ndecision  of the same Court in the earlier case of Hari\t Ram<br \/>\nJaggi(1).   The\t High Court failed to notice that,  in\tthat<br \/>\ncase,  there  was  a fixed amount  payable  every  month  as<br \/>\nelectric  charges.   We\t do not\t consider  it  necessary  to<br \/>\nexpress\t any opinion whether, in such a case,  the  electric<br \/>\ncharges\t could or could not form part of the rent.   On\t the<br \/>\nface  of it, where the electric charges are not\t fixed\tand<br \/>\ncan only be ascertained at the end of each month, after\t the<br \/>\nelectricity consumed is known, while the rent is payable  in<br \/>\nadvance,  it  is clear that the electric Charges  cannot  be<br \/>\nheld  to form part of the rent.\t That basis, on\t which\tthat<br \/>\nearlier case was decided, does not, therefore, exist in\t the<br \/>\npresent case.\n<\/p>\n<p>The High Court has &#8216;accepted that the amount in deposit\t was<br \/>\nenough\tto  cover  arrears on rent,  in\t case  the  electric<br \/>\ncharges\t are  not  treated as part of  the  rent.   On\tthis<br \/>\nfinding, the decision of the High Court upholding the  order<br \/>\nof eviction cannot be justified.  It, however, appears\tthat<br \/>\nthe District Judge had recorded another finding against\t the<br \/>\ntenant.\t  According  to the District Judge_,  there  was  no<br \/>\ndeposit\t or  tender even of the amount of Rs. 469.   In\t the<br \/>\nrevision  before  the  High  Court,  this  finding,  of\t the<br \/>\nDistrict  Judge was also assailed by the tenant.   The\tHigh<br \/>\nCourt  did not examine the propriety or correctness of\tthis<br \/>\nfinding.  Consequently, it is necessary that this aspect  of<br \/>\nthe case should be examined by the High Court.<br \/>\nAs,  a\tresult,\t we set aside the order of  the\t High  Court<br \/>\ndismissing the revision, and hold that, in case there was  a<br \/>\nproper\tdeposit\t or  tender of the sum of  Rs.\t469  by\t the<br \/>\ntenant,\t the tenant was not in arrears of rent and  was\t not<br \/>\nliable to ejectment.  The case will now go back to the\tHigh<br \/>\nCourt for re-hearing of the revision on the question whether<br \/>\nthis  sum  of  Rs. 469 had been\t tendered  or  deposited  in<br \/>\naccordance  with  law so as to satisfy the  requirements  of<br \/>\nsection\t 13  of Act III of 1949.  The costs of\tthis  appeal<br \/>\nwill abide the result.\n<\/p>\n<pre>G. C.\t\t\t  Case remanded.\n(1)  [1966] PLR 431.\n\t\t\t    85 9\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Chhote Lal vs Shri Kewal Krishan on 25 February, 1971 Equivalent citations: 1971 AIR 987, 1971 SCR (3) 855 Author: V Bhargava Bench: Bhargava, Vishishtha PETITIONER: CHHOTE LAL Vs. RESPONDENT: SHRI KEWAL KRISHAN DATE OF JUDGMENT25\/02\/1971 BENCH: BHARGAVA, VISHISHTHA BENCH: BHARGAVA, VISHISHTHA DUA, I.D. CITATION: 1971 AIR 987 1971 SCR (3) [&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":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-143107","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Chhote Lal vs Shri Kewal Krishan on 25 February, 1971 - 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\/chhote-lal-vs-shri-kewal-krishan-on-25-february-1971\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Chhote Lal vs Shri Kewal Krishan on 25 February, 1971 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chhote-lal-vs-shri-kewal-krishan-on-25-february-1971\" \/>\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=\"1971-02-24T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-10-20T12:52:04+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=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chhote-lal-vs-shri-kewal-krishan-on-25-february-1971#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chhote-lal-vs-shri-kewal-krishan-on-25-february-1971\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Chhote Lal vs Shri Kewal Krishan on 25 February, 1971\",\"datePublished\":\"1971-02-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-10-20T12:52:04+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chhote-lal-vs-shri-kewal-krishan-on-25-february-1971\"},\"wordCount\":1428,\"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\\\/chhote-lal-vs-shri-kewal-krishan-on-25-february-1971#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chhote-lal-vs-shri-kewal-krishan-on-25-february-1971\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chhote-lal-vs-shri-kewal-krishan-on-25-february-1971\",\"name\":\"Chhote Lal vs Shri Kewal Krishan on 25 February, 1971 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1971-02-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-10-20T12:52:04+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chhote-lal-vs-shri-kewal-krishan-on-25-february-1971#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chhote-lal-vs-shri-kewal-krishan-on-25-february-1971\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chhote-lal-vs-shri-kewal-krishan-on-25-february-1971#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Chhote Lal vs Shri Kewal Krishan on 25 February, 1971\"}]},{\"@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":"Chhote Lal vs Shri Kewal Krishan on 25 February, 1971 - 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\/chhote-lal-vs-shri-kewal-krishan-on-25-february-1971","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Chhote Lal vs Shri Kewal Krishan on 25 February, 1971 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chhote-lal-vs-shri-kewal-krishan-on-25-february-1971","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1971-02-24T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-10-20T12:52:04+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":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chhote-lal-vs-shri-kewal-krishan-on-25-february-1971#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chhote-lal-vs-shri-kewal-krishan-on-25-february-1971"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Chhote Lal vs Shri Kewal Krishan on 25 February, 1971","datePublished":"1971-02-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-10-20T12:52:04+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chhote-lal-vs-shri-kewal-krishan-on-25-february-1971"},"wordCount":1428,"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\/chhote-lal-vs-shri-kewal-krishan-on-25-february-1971#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chhote-lal-vs-shri-kewal-krishan-on-25-february-1971","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chhote-lal-vs-shri-kewal-krishan-on-25-february-1971","name":"Chhote Lal vs Shri Kewal Krishan on 25 February, 1971 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1971-02-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-10-20T12:52:04+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chhote-lal-vs-shri-kewal-krishan-on-25-february-1971#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chhote-lal-vs-shri-kewal-krishan-on-25-february-1971"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chhote-lal-vs-shri-kewal-krishan-on-25-february-1971#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Chhote Lal vs Shri Kewal Krishan on 25 February, 1971"}]},{"@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\/143107","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=143107"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/143107\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=143107"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=143107"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=143107"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}