{"id":180818,"date":"2010-08-06T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-08-05T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/radha-behari-tentiwala-vs-radha-raman-attar-on-6-august-2010"},"modified":"2015-06-12T21:53:42","modified_gmt":"2015-06-12T16:23:42","slug":"radha-behari-tentiwala-vs-radha-raman-attar-on-6-august-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/radha-behari-tentiwala-vs-radha-raman-attar-on-6-august-2010","title":{"rendered":"Radha Behari Tentiwala vs Radha Raman Attar on 6 August, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Allahabad High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Radha Behari Tentiwala vs Radha Raman Attar on 6 August, 2010<\/div>\n<pre>Court No. - 7\n\n\nCase :- WRIT - A No. - 11688 of 2001\n\n\nPetitioner :- Radha Behari Tentiwala\nRespondent :- Radha Raman Attar\nPetitioner Counsel :- M.K.Nigam,Rahul Sahai\nRespondent Counsel :- D.K.Tripathi,S.C.\n\n\nHon'ble Devendra Pratap Singh,J.\n<\/pre>\n<p>      Heard learned counsel for the parties.\n<\/p>\n<p>      This petition by the landlord is directed against an appellate order dated<br \/>\n2.3.2001 by which his release application has been dismissed after setting aside<br \/>\nthe order of the Prescribed Authority.\n<\/p>\n<p>      The petitioner landlord preferred a release application no. 23 of 1996<br \/>\nunder Section 21 (1)(a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 inter alia with the allegation<br \/>\nthat the respondent is the petitioner&#8217;s tenant of the disputed shop at Rs.30\/- per<br \/>\nmonth but the petitioner having retired from the Indian Air Force on 30.9.1994 at<br \/>\nthe age of 40, therefore required the disputed shop to engage himself and run a<br \/>\ngeneral merchant shop from the disputed premises and also to enhance his<br \/>\nincome which was meagre for the needs of his family. It was further stated that<br \/>\nthe respondent tenant has another shop no.523A adjoining the disputed shop<br \/>\nand in case the application is allowed, he would not suffer.\n<\/p>\n<p>      The respondent tenant contested the said application on various grounds<br \/>\nincluding that he was carrying on business from the disputed shop since last<br \/>\nseveral years and the petitioner had sufficient income from his pension, rent and<br \/>\nshare in the Jajmani business and therefore did not require the shop. It was<br \/>\nfurther asserted that from shop no.523A his son Brij Mohan was running a<br \/>\nmedical store independently and it was not available for him.\n<\/p>\n<p>      After exchange of pleadings, the Prescribed Authority vide its order and<br \/>\njudgment dated 7th of April 2000 allowed the release for settling himself and for<br \/>\naugmenting his income which need was found both genuine and bonafide and<br \/>\nthe respondent tenant had alternative accommodation available. Aggrieved, the<br \/>\ntenant preferred an appeal which has been allowed by the impugned order dated<br \/>\n2.3.2001 holding that the landlord had sufficient income and the tenant did not<br \/>\nhave any alternative accommodation.\n<\/p>\n<p>      Learned counsel for the petitioner has firstly urged that the appellate court<br \/>\nhas erred in law in holding that merely because the landlord had sufficient<br \/>\nincome from pension and rent, his need was not genuine or bonafide in the teeth<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                                                                     2<\/span><\/p>\n<p>of the fact that it was specifically mentioned in the release application that it was<br \/>\nrequired to settle himself. In support of his contention, he has relied upon a<br \/>\njudgment of this court rendered in the case of        <a href=\"\/doc\/1514815\/\">Moti Lal Sharma vs. Addl.<br \/>\nDistrict Judge, Dehradun &amp; others<\/a> [1987 (2) ARC 75].\n<\/p>\n<p>       There is no dispute that the petitioner was an Airman in Indian Air Force<br \/>\nand from there he retired in 1994 at the young age of 40 years. From the release<br \/>\napplication, specially from paras 4 and 8, it is apparent that the need set up was<br \/>\nfor engaging himself in some occupation and augmenting his income. The<br \/>\nappellate court did not consider the need of the landlord with regard to engaging<br \/>\nhimself in some vocation, but went on to hold that in view of a family settlement<br \/>\nof 1981, the petitioner is entitled to receive a portion of the earnings of the family<br \/>\nfrom &#8216;jajmani&#8217; and the amount would be substantial, therefore, he had no need to<br \/>\nengage himself in any vocation. The reasoning and the approach is not only<br \/>\nerroneous but absurd. Every landlord has a right to engage himself in some<br \/>\nvocation and it is not for the tenant or the court to say that it is not necessary to<br \/>\nengage in any vocation or business of his choice. A young man of 40 years has<br \/>\nevery right to usefully engage himself in any business or vocation and merely<br \/>\nbecause he may have substantial earning from rent etc. would not water down<br \/>\nhis genuine need. Assuming that the petitioner had a regular income, that by<br \/>\nitself would not render the bonafide and genuine need inconsequential. Thus, the<br \/>\nargument of the petitioner is bound to be accepted.\n<\/p>\n<p>       It is the case of the tenant himself that his father was a tenant of the<br \/>\ndisputed shop since very long, it is also admitted that the tenant had purchased<br \/>\nthe adjoining shop no. 523A from the family of the landlord in 1971, but it is said<br \/>\nthat the same is being utilised by his son, who admittedly is a member of the<br \/>\ntenant&#8217;s family, therefore it cannot be said that the tenant would suffer greater<br \/>\nhardship. In fact in view of the Explanation to the proviso, the tenant cannot<br \/>\nobject to the bonafide need of the landlord. Apart from that, there is nothing on<br \/>\nrecord to show that the tenant made any bonafide effort to search for an<br \/>\nalternative shop though the release was filed in 1996 and even during the<br \/>\npendency of this petition since 2001. The landlord cannot be forced to sit idle or<br \/>\nlook for a tenanted accommodation for fulfilment of his need especially when the<br \/>\ntenant has an alternative shop available. It is evident from the record that the<br \/>\ntenant was about 73 years of age when the application was filed in 1996 and now<br \/>\nhe would be more than 90 years, therefore, also the shop would not be required<br \/>\nby him. For all these reasons, even the comparative hardship was in favour of<br \/>\nthe landlord as held by the trial court.\n<\/p>\n<p>       However, learned counsel for the respondent tenant has filed a<br \/>\nsupplementary affidavit stating that the two sons of the petitioner landlord are<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                                                                3<\/span><\/p>\n<p>gainfully employed and the pension of the landlord has also been increased to<br \/>\nRs.12,000\/-.\n<\/p>\n<p>      Be it so, the need, as noted above, was for engaging himself in some<br \/>\noccupation, therefore, increase in pension, which is otherwise disputed would be<br \/>\nimmaterial.\n<\/p>\n<p>      For the reasons above, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed and the<br \/>\nappellate order dated 2.3.2001 is quashed and that of the Prescribed Authority is<br \/>\nrestored.\n<\/p>\n<p>      In the circumstances of the case, no order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n<p>Order Date :- 06.8.2010<br \/>\nPKG\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Allahabad High Court Radha Behari Tentiwala vs Radha Raman Attar on 6 August, 2010 Court No. &#8211; 7 Case :- WRIT &#8211; A No. &#8211; 11688 of 2001 Petitioner :- Radha Behari Tentiwala Respondent :- Radha Raman Attar Petitioner Counsel :- M.K.Nigam,Rahul Sahai Respondent Counsel :- D.K.Tripathi,S.C. Hon&#8217;ble Devendra Pratap Singh,J. Heard learned counsel for [&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":[9,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-180818","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-allahabad-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.0 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Radha Behari Tentiwala vs Radha Raman Attar on 6 August, 2010 - 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\/radha-behari-tentiwala-vs-radha-raman-attar-on-6-august-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Radha Behari Tentiwala vs Radha Raman Attar on 6 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/radha-behari-tentiwala-vs-radha-raman-attar-on-6-august-2010\" \/>\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=\"2010-08-05T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-06-12T16:23:42+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=\"5 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/radha-behari-tentiwala-vs-radha-raman-attar-on-6-august-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/radha-behari-tentiwala-vs-radha-raman-attar-on-6-august-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Radha Behari Tentiwala vs Radha Raman Attar on 6 August, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-08-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-06-12T16:23:42+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/radha-behari-tentiwala-vs-radha-raman-attar-on-6-august-2010\"},\"wordCount\":968,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Allahabad High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/radha-behari-tentiwala-vs-radha-raman-attar-on-6-august-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/radha-behari-tentiwala-vs-radha-raman-attar-on-6-august-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/radha-behari-tentiwala-vs-radha-raman-attar-on-6-august-2010\",\"name\":\"Radha Behari Tentiwala vs Radha Raman Attar on 6 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-08-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-06-12T16:23:42+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/radha-behari-tentiwala-vs-radha-raman-attar-on-6-august-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/radha-behari-tentiwala-vs-radha-raman-attar-on-6-august-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/radha-behari-tentiwala-vs-radha-raman-attar-on-6-august-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Radha Behari Tentiwala vs Radha Raman Attar on 6 August, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/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":"Radha Behari Tentiwala vs Radha Raman Attar on 6 August, 2010 - 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\/radha-behari-tentiwala-vs-radha-raman-attar-on-6-august-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Radha Behari Tentiwala vs Radha Raman Attar on 6 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/radha-behari-tentiwala-vs-radha-raman-attar-on-6-august-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-08-05T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-06-12T16:23:42+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":"5 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/radha-behari-tentiwala-vs-radha-raman-attar-on-6-august-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/radha-behari-tentiwala-vs-radha-raman-attar-on-6-august-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Radha Behari Tentiwala vs Radha Raman Attar on 6 August, 2010","datePublished":"2010-08-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-06-12T16:23:42+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/radha-behari-tentiwala-vs-radha-raman-attar-on-6-august-2010"},"wordCount":968,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Allahabad High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/radha-behari-tentiwala-vs-radha-raman-attar-on-6-august-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/radha-behari-tentiwala-vs-radha-raman-attar-on-6-august-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/radha-behari-tentiwala-vs-radha-raman-attar-on-6-august-2010","name":"Radha Behari Tentiwala vs Radha Raman Attar on 6 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-08-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-06-12T16:23:42+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/radha-behari-tentiwala-vs-radha-raman-attar-on-6-august-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/radha-behari-tentiwala-vs-radha-raman-attar-on-6-august-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/radha-behari-tentiwala-vs-radha-raman-attar-on-6-august-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Radha Behari Tentiwala vs Radha Raman Attar on 6 August, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/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\/180818","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=180818"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/180818\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=180818"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=180818"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=180818"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}