{"id":182784,"date":"2010-07-21T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-07-20T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-mohanan-vs-pottendavida-usman-on-21-july-2010"},"modified":"2014-04-07T19:49:28","modified_gmt":"2014-04-07T14:19:28","slug":"k-mohanan-vs-pottendavida-usman-on-21-july-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-mohanan-vs-pottendavida-usman-on-21-july-2010","title":{"rendered":"K.Mohanan vs Pottendavida Usman on 21 July, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
K.Mohanan vs Pottendavida Usman on 21 July, 2010<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nRCRev..No. 196 of 2010()\n\n\n1. K.MOHANAN, S\/O GOPALAN, AGED 47 YEARS,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. POTTENDAVIDA USMAN, S\/O. LATE MAMMED,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.R.SURENDRAN\n\n                For Respondent  : No Appearance\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice C.K.ABDUL REHIM\n\n Dated :21\/07\/2010\n\n O R D E R\n          PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ.\n                      ------------------------\n                      R.C.R.No.196 OF 2010\n                      ------------------------\n\n              Dated this the 21st day of July, 2010\n\n\n                            O R D E R\n<\/pre>\n
Pius C.Kuriakose, J.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
     The tenant challenges in this revision under Section 20 the<\/p>\n
judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority confirming the<\/p>\n
order of eviction passed by the Rent Control Court under Section<\/p>\n
11(4)(iii).  In fact the respondent\/landlord invoked the ground<\/p>\n
of arrears of rent Section 11(2)(b) and the ground of bona fide<\/p>\n
need for own occupation under Section 11(3) also for evicting<\/p>\n
the tenant.     Eviction on the ground of arrears of     rent was<\/p>\n
declined by the Rent Control Court and the said order has<\/p>\n
become final.     The Rent Control Court ordered eviction under<\/p>\n
Section 11(3). But, during the pendency of the appeal preferred<\/p>\n
by the tenant the person, for whom       possession of the building<\/p>\n
was sought under Section 11(3), passed away. It was noticed by<\/p>\n
the Appellate Authority that, the need under Section 11(3) was<\/p>\n
R.C.R. No.196\/2010.             2<\/span><\/p>\n
not the need for personal occupation of the person who passed<\/p>\n
away alone, but occupation by the family members of him also.<\/p>\n
Hence permitting the landlord to amend the pleadings, the issue<\/p>\n
of ordering eviction under section 11(3) was relegated to the<\/p>\n
Rent Control Court.\n<\/p>\n
      2. It was on the basis of a building, which is referred to in<\/p>\n
the judgment of the Appellate Authority as ‘Janaki’s building’,<\/p>\n
that the Rent Control Court passed order of eviction under sect<\/p>\n
ion 11 (4)(iii). The pleading of the landlord in the RCP was that<\/p>\n
the tenant has acquired possession of another building and is<\/p>\n
actually doing his business of conducting taxi house (hiring of<\/p>\n
furniture, etc.) from that building.     The revision petitioner’s<\/p>\n
defence was one of total denial.      It became evident through<\/p>\n
Ext.A3 and the tenant’s own oral evidence that he had come into<\/p>\n
possession of the building referred to as ‘Janaki’s building’. The<\/p>\n
tenant’s case was that the above building is a residential building<\/p>\n
in which he is presently residing.   Significantly, the tenant did<\/p>\n
not specifically contend even      alternatively that the above<\/p>\n
building is not reasonably sufficient for his requirements.    The<\/p>\n
statutory authorities have taken the view that when it becomes<\/p>\n
R.C.R. No.196\/2010.               3<\/span><\/p>\n
evident that the tenant is in possession of another building, it is<\/p>\n
the tenant’s burden to adduce evidence and show that the said<\/p>\n
building is not reasonably sufficient for his requirements within<\/p>\n
the same city, town or village. It is in that view of the matter<\/p>\n
that the Appellate Authority confirmed the order of eviction<\/p>\n
passed under Section 11(4)(iii).\n<\/p>\n
      3. In this revision under section 20, various grounds have<\/p>\n
been raised assailing the judgment of the Appellate Authority to<\/p>\n
the extent it relates to section 11 (4)(iii).      Mr.R.Surendran,<\/p>\n
learned counsel for the revision petitioner, addressed arguments<\/p>\n
before us on the basis of all the grounds.              Inter alia,<\/p>\n
Mr.Surendran submitted that the building, which the tenant has<\/p>\n
admitted to be in his possession, is a residential building only. A<\/p>\n
ration card, which was sought to be adduced as an item of<\/p>\n
evidence before the Appellate Authority, was not allowed to be<\/p>\n
brought on record. At any rate, according to the learned counsel,<\/p>\n
a residential building will not be suitable for conduct of business.<\/p>\n
As regards Ext.A3, Mr.Surendran submitted that Ext.A3 was not<\/p>\n
put to his client, while he was examined as RW1, during cross<\/p>\n
examination.     Hence, reliance placed on Ext.A3 to hold that the<\/p>\n
R.C.R. No.196\/2010.               4<\/span><\/p>\n
tenant has acquired possession of another building reasonably<\/p>\n
sufficient for his requirement is not justified. The learned counsel<\/p>\n
submitted that the petition schedule building is a double storied<\/p>\n
building and it is too much to assume that there will be enough<\/p>\n
facility in Ext.A3 building for accommodating the entire business<\/p>\n
which is being carried      on in the petition schedule building.<\/p>\n
Mr.Surendran      further submitted that the rent control petition<\/p>\n
lacks in proper pleadings regarding section 11(4)(iii) as there is<\/p>\n
no plea that the building acquired by the tenant is reasonably<\/p>\n
sufficient for the tenant’s requirement.        The learned counsel<\/p>\n
would     argue that Section 11(4)(iii) of Act 2 of 1965 is<\/p>\n
unconstitutional and is liable to be struck down as it is likely that<\/p>\n
the above       eviction ground be invoked by the landlords of<\/p>\n
buildings simultaneously possessed by a tenant resulting in the<\/p>\n
situation of the tenant becoming liable to be evicted from both<\/p>\n
the buildings. Mr.Surendran further requested that as the matter<\/p>\n
is already before the Rent Control Court in the context of Section<\/p>\n
11(3), let the issue of section 11(4)(iii) also be reconsidered by<\/p>\n
the Rent Control Court.\n<\/p>\n
R.C.R. No.196\/2010.              5<\/span><\/p>\n
      4.     We have anxiously considered the submissions of<\/p>\n
Sri.Surendran. According to us,         the legislative intendment<\/p>\n
underlying section 11(4)(iii) is that at a time, where there is<\/p>\n
acute accommodation shortage, the tenant should not be allowed<\/p>\n
the luxury of having more buildings in his possession than that<\/p>\n
what is actually necessary for his purpose, so that additional<\/p>\n
buildings in the possession of the tenant can be made available<\/p>\n
either for a needy landlord or for other needy tenants.       Here<\/p>\n
there was a specific plea by the landlord that the tenant has<\/p>\n
acquired possession of another building and that it is in that<\/p>\n
building that the tenant is presently conducting the business<\/p>\n
which he was conducting in the petition schedule building. True,<\/p>\n
the statutory requirement that the building, possession of which<\/p>\n
is acquired by the tenant over and above the petition schedule<\/p>\n
building, is reasonably sufficient for the tenant’s requirements in<\/p>\n
the same city, town or village, is not specifically pleaded. But,<\/p>\n
we notice that it has been pleaded by the landlord that it is in<\/p>\n
the newly acquired building that the tenant is conducting<\/p>\n
business.   The authorities under the Rent Control Act are not<\/p>\n
expected to analyse the pleadings meticulously. According to us,<\/p>\n
R.C.R. No.196\/2010.              6<\/span><\/p>\n
pleadings raised by the landlord are         sufficient enough to<\/p>\n
constitute eviction ground     since any   building, in which the<\/p>\n
tenant is allegedly conducting the business which he used to<\/p>\n
conduct in the petition schedule building will       have    to be<\/p>\n
reasonably sufficient for the tenant’s requirement.    At any rate<\/p>\n
we are convinced that no prejudice has been occasioned to the<\/p>\n
tenant on account of insufficiency of pleadings.<\/p>\n
     5. The statutory requirement under Section 11 (4)(iii) is not<\/p>\n
ownership of     a building other than the petition schedule<\/p>\n
premises, instead,    the requirement is     possession.    Ext.A3<\/p>\n
coupled with the tenant’s own admission in the witness box will<\/p>\n
show that though the building in question stands in the name<\/p>\n
of his mother Janaki, it is the tenant, who is in actual occupation<\/p>\n
of the building.  We are not impressed by the submission of Sri.<\/p>\n
Surendran that Ext.A3 was not put to the tenant in cross<\/p>\n
examination. It is true that it was not Ext.A3 that was put to the<\/p>\n
tenant in cross examination, but another agreement in respect of<\/p>\n
the building covered by Ext.A3. It was thereafter that Ext.A3<\/p>\n
was got marked in evidence. Ext.A3 is a certified copy of the<\/p>\n
Property Tax Assessment Register maintained by the local<\/p>\n
R.C.R. No.196\/2010.               7<\/span><\/p>\n
authority in respect of the building mentioned therein. Ext.A3 is<\/p>\n
a document having considerable probative value in view of<\/p>\n
section 26 of Act 2 of 1965 and the Rent Control Court was<\/p>\n
bound to accept admission of Ext.A3 in evidence.             In all<\/p>\n
probability, Ext.A3 was admitted in evidence on consent.      Even<\/p>\n
without consent, Ext.A3 was liable to be admitted in evidence.<\/p>\n
      6.    As already indicated, the tenant did not have a specific<\/p>\n
case that the building covered by Ext.A3 was not reasonably<\/p>\n
sufficient for his requirement. On the contrary, his case was that<\/p>\n
he has nothing to do with that building. Once it became evident<\/p>\n
that the tenant is in possession of the building, it was his burden<\/p>\n
to have     adduced cogent evidence and convinced the Rent<\/p>\n
Control Court that the said building is not reasonably sufficient<\/p>\n
for his requirements.    Having not done so, he cannot blame the<\/p>\n
statutory authorities for having concluded that the landlord has<\/p>\n
established eviction ground against the tenant under Section 11<\/p>\n
(4)(iii).\n<\/p>\n
      7. We are not impressed by the argument of the revision<\/p>\n
petitioner regarding the    constitutionality of Section 11(4) (iii).<\/p>\n
We are not expected to enquire into the constitutionality of a<\/p>\n
R.C.R. No.196\/2010.               8<\/span><\/p>\n
statutory provision in these proceedings under section 20 of Act<\/p>\n
2 of 1965 where our essential concern is about         the legality,<\/p>\n
regularity and propriety of the judgment of the appellate<\/p>\n
authority.     The constitutionality of the provision was never<\/p>\n
challenged hitherto by the revision petitioner. We do not find<\/p>\n
much merit in the challenge on the constitutionality of         the<\/p>\n
provision.   One of the legislative objectives underlying the rent<\/p>\n
control legislation is to regulate letting, rent rates, and eviction<\/p>\n
in view of the acute accommodation shortage prevalent.         It is<\/p>\n
trite     by   decisions of the Supreme Court that rent control<\/p>\n
legislations are for the welfare of the landlords also. Even if it is<\/p>\n
accepted that the essential objective of the statute is to prevent<\/p>\n
eviction other than on specified grounds and in that way to<\/p>\n
promote the welfare of tenants, we are of the view that            a<\/p>\n
tenant who is liable to be evicted under Section 11 (4) (iii) is<\/p>\n
landlord like, as he enjoys, possession of more buildings than<\/p>\n
necessary for his requirements.\n<\/p>\n
      In short, we do not find any illegality, irregularity or<\/p>\n
impropriety as envisaged by Section         20 of Act 2 of 1965,<\/p>\n
tainting the judgment of the Appellate Authority to the extent it<\/p>\n
R.C.R. No.196\/2010.            9<\/span><\/p>\n
pertains to ground under Section 11 (4)(iii). The decision of the<\/p>\n
Appellate Authority ordering eviction under Section 11 (4)(iii)<\/p>\n
stands confirmed. The revision petition stands dismissed.<\/p>\n
                                PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE<\/p>\n
                                C.K.ABDUL REHIM , JUDGE
\ndpk<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court K.Mohanan vs Pottendavida Usman on 21 July, 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM RCRev..No. 196 of 2010() 1. K.MOHANAN, S\/O GOPALAN, AGED 47 YEARS, … Petitioner Vs 1. POTTENDAVIDA USMAN, S\/O. LATE MAMMED, … Respondent For Petitioner :SRI.R.SURENDRAN For Respondent : No Appearance The Hon’ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE […]<\/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":[8,21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-182784","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nK.Mohanan vs Pottendavida Usman on 21 July, 2010 - 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\/k-mohanan-vs-pottendavida-usman-on-21-july-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"K.Mohanan vs Pottendavida Usman on 21 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-mohanan-vs-pottendavida-usman-on-21-july-2010\" \/>\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=\"2010-07-20T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-04-07T14:19:28+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=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-mohanan-vs-pottendavida-usman-on-21-july-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-mohanan-vs-pottendavida-usman-on-21-july-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"K.Mohanan vs Pottendavida Usman on 21 July, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-07-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-04-07T14:19:28+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-mohanan-vs-pottendavida-usman-on-21-july-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1617,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Kerala High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-mohanan-vs-pottendavida-usman-on-21-july-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-mohanan-vs-pottendavida-usman-on-21-july-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-mohanan-vs-pottendavida-usman-on-21-july-2010\",\"name\":\"K.Mohanan vs Pottendavida Usman on 21 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-07-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-04-07T14:19:28+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-mohanan-vs-pottendavida-usman-on-21-july-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-mohanan-vs-pottendavida-usman-on-21-july-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-mohanan-vs-pottendavida-usman-on-21-july-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"K.Mohanan vs Pottendavida Usman on 21 July, 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:\\\/\\\/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":"K.Mohanan vs Pottendavida Usman on 21 July, 2010 - 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\/k-mohanan-vs-pottendavida-usman-on-21-july-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"K.Mohanan vs Pottendavida Usman on 21 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-mohanan-vs-pottendavida-usman-on-21-july-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-07-20T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-04-07T14:19:28+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":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-mohanan-vs-pottendavida-usman-on-21-july-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-mohanan-vs-pottendavida-usman-on-21-july-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"K.Mohanan vs Pottendavida Usman on 21 July, 2010","datePublished":"2010-07-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-04-07T14:19:28+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-mohanan-vs-pottendavida-usman-on-21-july-2010"},"wordCount":1617,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Kerala High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-mohanan-vs-pottendavida-usman-on-21-july-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-mohanan-vs-pottendavida-usman-on-21-july-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-mohanan-vs-pottendavida-usman-on-21-july-2010","name":"K.Mohanan vs Pottendavida Usman on 21 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-07-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-04-07T14:19:28+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-mohanan-vs-pottendavida-usman-on-21-july-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-mohanan-vs-pottendavida-usman-on-21-july-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-mohanan-vs-pottendavida-usman-on-21-july-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"K.Mohanan vs Pottendavida Usman on 21 July, 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:\/\/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\/182784","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=182784"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/182784\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=182784"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=182784"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=182784"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}