{"id":187394,"date":"1979-02-05T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1979-02-04T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-mohan-lal-vs-r-kondiah-on-5-february-1979"},"modified":"2017-04-06T11:55:45","modified_gmt":"2017-04-06T06:25:45","slug":"s-mohan-lal-vs-r-kondiah-on-5-february-1979","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-mohan-lal-vs-r-kondiah-on-5-february-1979","title":{"rendered":"S.Mohan Lal vs R. Kondiah on 5 February, 1979"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
S.Mohan Lal vs R. Kondiah on 5 February, 1979<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1979 AIR 1132, \t\t 1979 SCR (3)\t 12<\/div>\n
Author: O C Reddy<\/div>\n
Bench: Reddy, O. Chinnappa (J)<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nS.MOHAN LAL\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nR. KONDIAH\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT05\/02\/1979\n\nBENCH:\nREDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J)\nBENCH:\nREDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J)\nSARKARIA, RANJIT SINGH\n\nCITATION:\n 1979 AIR 1132\t\t  1979 SCR  (3)\t 12\n 1979 SCC  (2) 616\n CITATOR INFO :\n RF\t    1988 SC 852\t (8)\n\n\nACT:\n     Andhra Pradesh  Building  (Lease,\tRent  and  Eviction)\nControl\t  Act,\t  1960,\t  s.\t10(3)(a)(iii),\t \"business,\"\ninterpretation,\t  whether   includes   practice\t  of   legal\nprofession-Construction of expressions, principles.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n     The  respondent,  an  advocate,  sought  to  evict\t his\ntenant, the  appellant, under  s. 10(3)\t (a)  (iii)  of\t the\nAndhra Pradesh\tBuilding (Lease,  Rent and Eviction) Control\nAct, 1960,  on the  ground that\t he  required  the  disputed\npremises for  carrying on his profession. The court of small\ncauses, Hyderabad,  finding that  the requirement  was\tbona\nfide, passed  an eviction  order against  the appellant.  In\nrevision, the  High Court  negatived the contention that the\nexpression \"business\"  used in\ts.  10(3)(a)(iii),  did\t not\ninclude the 'profession' of an advocate.\n     Dismissing the appeal, the Court,\n^\n     HELD: 1. \"Business\" is a word of large and wide import,\ncapable of  a variety  of meanings.  In a  broad sense it is\ntaken to  mean 'everything that occupies the time, attention\nand labour  of men, for the purpose of livlihood or profit'.\nThe practice of law is 'business' within the meaning of that\nexpression in  s.  10(3)(a)(iii).  The\tAct  is\t of  general\napplication, and  its protection  is  not  confined  to\t any\nclasses of tenants, nor is the right to evict under the Act,\nlimited to  any class of landlords. There is no reason why a\nlandlord who is a member of the legal or medical professions\nand who\t requires the  premises for carrying on the practice\nof his\tprofession, should be wholly debarred from obtaining\npossession of  the premises.  It would\tbe anamolous to hold\nthat all  the provisions of the Act apply to non-residential\nbuildings owned by an Advocate, excepting s. 10(3)(a)(iii).\n\t\t\t\t\t[14D, E, 16A-B, C-D]\n     Williams'\tWill   Trusts,\tChartered   Bank  of  India,\nAustralia and  China and Anr. v. Williams and Ors., [1953] 1\nAll. ELR 536; Taramal v. Laxman Sewak Surey & Ors. 1971 MPLJ\n888, approved.\n     M.\t P.  Sethurama\tMenon  v.  Thaiparambath  Kunhukutty\nAmma's daughter,  Meenakshi Amma & Ors., AIR 1967 Kerala 88;\nBangalore Water-Supply\tSewerage Board, etc. v. R. Rajappa &\nOrs., [1978] 3 SCR 207; Stuchbery & Ors. v. General Accident\nFire and  Life Assurance  Corp.\t Ltd.,\t[1949]\t2  KBD\t256;\ndistinguished.\n     2. It  is\ta  sound  principle  of\t construction  that,\nmeaning of  words and  expressions used in an Act, must take\ntheir colour  from the context in which they appear. Neither\nthe meaning,  nor the  definition of  a term in one statute,\naffords a  guide to  the construction  of the  same term  in\nanother statute,  more so, if the two Acts in which the same\nword is\t used, are not cognate Acts and the sense in which a\nterm has  been understood  in  several\tstatutes,  does\t not\nnecessarily throw any light on the manner in which it should\nbe under stood generally. [14G-H & 15A]\n13\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
     CIVIL APPELLATE  JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2047 of
\n1969.\n<\/p>\n
     A Appeal  by Special  Leave from the Judgment and Order
\ndated 25-6-1969\t of the\t Andhra Pradesh\t High Court in Civil
\nRevision Petition No. 346\/67.\n<\/p>\n
     Y. S. Chitaley, S. K. Mehta, P. N. Puri and E. M. Sarul
\nAnam for the Appellant.\n<\/p>\n
     A.\t T.   M.  Sampath  and\tP.  N.\tRamalingam  for\t the
\nRespondent.\n<\/p>\n
     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\n     CHlNNAPPA\t REDDY,\t   J.-The   short    question\t for
\nconsideration in  this appeal is whether the practice of the
\nlegal profession is ‘business’ within the meaning of Section
\n10(3) (a) (iii) of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent
\nand Eviction)  Control Act,  1960. The\tquestion arises this
\nway. The respondent, an Advocate filed an application before
\nthe Rent  Controller seeking  eviction of the appellant, his
\ntenant, from  the premises in question on the ground that he
\nrequired the  premises for  the purpose\t of carrying  on his
\nprofession as  an Advocate. The application was contested by
\nthe  appellant\t who  was   carrying  on   the\tbusiness  of
\nmanufacturing art  jewellery in\t the premises.\tWe  are\t not
\nconcerned in  this appeal  with the  several defences  which
\nwere raised  by the appellant. Nor are we concerned with the
\nvicissitudes which  the case  underwent. For the purposes of
\nthis appeal  it is sufficient to say that the final Court of
\nfact, namely  the Chief\t Judge of the Court of Small causes,
\nHyderabad, found  that the respondent bona fide required the
\npremises for the purpose of carrying on his profession as an
\nAdvocate and that the tenancy was not such as could be split
\nup. The\t Appellate authorities\tpassed an  order of eviction
\nagainst the  appellant. Before\tthe High Court, in revision,
\nit was\tcontended by  the appellant that the practice of the
\nprofession of  an  Advocate  was  not  business\t within\t the
\nmeaning of  Section 10(3)  (a)\t(iii)  and,  therefore,\t the
\nrespondent could  not seek  the eviction of the appellant on
\nthe ground  that he required the premises for the purpose of
\ncarrying on  his profession as an Advocate. It was contended
\nthat Section  10(3) (a) (iii) used the expression ‘business’
\nonly and not the expression ‘profession.’ The contention was
\nnegatived by  a Division  Bench of  the High Court of Andhra
\nPradesh consisting  of Gopalrao\t Ekbote and Ramachandra Rao,
\nJJ. The tenant has appealed by special leave to this Court.\n<\/p>\n
     Dr. Chitaley  learned counsel  for the appellant argued
\nthat there  was a  clear distinction  between ‘business’ and
\n‘profession’ and  that the  practice of a liberal profession
\nlike that of an Advocate or a Doctor which
\n14<\/span>
\nhad nothing  commercial about it was not business within the
\nmeaning of  Section 10\t(3) (a)\t (iii) of the Andhra Pradesh
\nBuildings (  Lease, Rent  and Eviction) control Act 1960. He
\nargued that though the Andhra Pradesh Act broadly classified
\nbuildings into\tresidential and\t non-residential  buildings,
\nthe landlord of a non-residential building could not seek to
\nevict his  tenant on the ground of his requirement unless it
\nwas for\t the purpose of carrying on a business. According to
\nthe learned  Counsel  this  indicated  that  the  expression
\nbusiness was  to be  given a  narrow meaning  and was  to be
\nconfined to  activities of  a commercial nature. The learned
\nCounsel\t also\turged  that   the  Court   should  favour  a
\nconstruction which  would be  beneficient to the tenant. Dr.
\nChitaley relied\t on M.\tP. Sethurama  Menon v. Thaiparambath
\nKunhukutty Amma’s  daughter, Meenakshi\tAmma  and  Ors.\t (1)
\nBangalore Water-Supply & Sewerage Board etc. v. R. Rajappa &
\nOrs. (2)  and Stuchbery\t & Ors. v. General Accident Fire and
\nLife Insurance Corporation Ltd.(3)
\n     The expression  business has  not been  defined in\t the
\nAndhra Pradesh\tBuildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control
\nAct, 1960. It is a common expression which is sometimes used
\nby itself  and sometimes  in a\tcollocation of\twords as  in
\n“business, trade  or profession”.  It is a word of large and
\nwide import,,  capable of  a  variety  of  meanings.  It  is
\nneedless to  refer to the meanings given to that term in the
\nvarious Dictionaries  except to\t say that  everyone of\tthem
\nnotices a  large number\t of meanings of the word. In a broad
\nsense it  is taken to mean everything that occupies the time
\nattention and  labour of men for the purpose of livlihood or
\nprofit’. In  a narrow  sense it\t is confined  to  commercial
\nactivity. It is obvious that the meaning of the word must be
\ngleaned from  the context  in which it is used. Reference to
\nthe provisions\tof the Constitution or other statutes where!
\nthe expression\tis used\t cannot\t be  of\t any  assistance  in
\ndetermining its\t meaning in  Section 10(3)  (a) (iii) of the
\nAndhra Pradesh\tBuilding (Lease,  Rent and Eviction) Control
\nAct, 1960.  It is  not a  sound principle of construction tn
\ninterpret expressions  used in\tone Act\t with  reference  to
\ntheir use  in another Act; more so, if the two Acts in which
\nthe same  word is  used are  not cognate  Acts. Neither\t the
\nmeaning, nor  the definition  of the  term  in\tone  statute
\naffords a  guide to  the construction  of the  same term  in
\nanother statute\t and the  sense in  which the  term has been
\nunderstood in  the several  statutes  does  not\t necessarily
\nthrow any  light on  the manner\t in which the term should be
\nunderstood generally. On the other hand it is a
\n     (1) A.I.R. 1967 Kerala 88.\n<\/p>\n
     (2) [1978] 3 S.C.R. 207.\n<\/p>\n
     (3) [1949] 2 K. B. D. 256.\n<\/p>\n
15<\/span><\/p>\n
sound, and,  indeed, a\twell known principle of construction
\nthat meaning  of words\tand expressions\t used in an Act must
\ntake their colour from the content in which they appear. Dr.
\nChitaley very frankly and fairly conceded as much.\n<\/p>\n
     Now the  Andhra  Pradesh  Buildings  (Lease,  Rent\t and
\nEviction) Control  Act, 1960, is an ‘Act to consolidate, and
\namend the  law relating\t to the\t regulation  of\t leasing  of
\nbuildings, the\tcontrol of  rent thereof an(l the prevention
\nof unreasonable\t eviction of  tenants therefrom in the State
\nof Andhra Pradesh. It applies to the cities of Hyderabad and
\nSecunderabad and  to all  municipalities  in  the  State  of
\nAndhra Pradesh.\t The provisions\t of the Act, however, do not
\napply to  buildings owned by the Government and to buildings
\nconstructed on\tor after  26th\tAugust,\t 1957.\tBuilding  is
\nbroadly defined\t as meaning  any house or hut or a part of a
\nhouse or hut, let or to be let separately for residential or
\nnonresidential purposes. Landlord is defined as the owner of
\na building,  including a  person  who  is  receiving  or  is
\nentitled to  receive the  rent of  a building,\ton  his\t own
\naccount or  on behalf  of  another  person  etc.  Tenant  is
\ndefined as  a person  by whom  or on  whose account  rent is
\npayable\t for   a  building.   Section  4  provides  for\t the
\ndetermination  of   a  fair   rent  of\ta  building  on\t the
\napplication  of\t  the  tenant  or  landlord.  Section  10(1)
\nprovides that  a tenant\t shall not  be\tevicted\t whether  in
\nexecution of a decree or otherwise except in accordance with
\nthe provisions\tof Sections  10, 12  and 13.  Section  10(2)
\nmentions several  grounds on  which a  landlord may  seek to
\nevict a\t tenant. The grounds are default of payment of rent,
\nsub-letting of\tpremises, used for a purpose other than that
\nfor which  it was  leased,  commission\tof  acts  of  waste,
\nconduct amounting  to nuisance to the occupiers of the other
\nportions in  the  same\tbuilding,  securing  of\t alternative
\naccommodation by  the tenant  and denial of the title of the
\nlandlord. The  grounds mentioned in Section 10(2) apply both
\nto residential\tand non-residential buildings. Section 10(3)\n<\/p>\n
(a) (i)\t provides for  the eviction  of a  tenant where\t the
\nlandlord of  a residential  building requires it for his own
\noccupation. Section  10(3)(a)(iii) provides for the eviction
\nof a  tenant from  a  non-residential  building\t where\t“the
\nlandlord is  not occupying  a non-residential  building in a
\ncity town  or village  concerned which\tis his own or to the
\npossession of  which he is entitled whether under the Act or
\notherwise-(a) for  the purpose\tof a  business which  he  is
\ncarrying on  on the  date of the application, or (b) for the
\npurpose\t of   a\t business   which  in  the  opinion  of\t the
\nController, the\t landlord bona-fide  proposes to  commence”.
\nSection 12  and 13  contain special  provisions relating  to
\nrecovery  of  buildings\t by  landlord  for  the\t purpose  of
\neffecting  repairs,   alterations  or\tadditions   or\t for
\nreconstruction.\t The   scheme  of  the\tAct  is\t to  prevent
\nunreasonable eviction of
\n16<\/span>
\ntenants\t by   landlords\t and  to  provide  for\teviction  on
\nspecified grounds. The Act is of general application and its
\nprotection not confined to any classes of tenants nor is the
\nright to  evict under  the  Act\t limited  to  any  class  of
\nlandlords. There is no reason why a landlord who is a member
\nof the\tlegal or  medical professions  and who\trequires the
\npremises for  carrying on  the practice\t of  his  profession
\nshould be  wholly debarred  from obtaining possession of the
\npremises. It  is impossible  to discover  any reason  for so
\nmaking a  discrimination against  the  liberal\tprofessions.
\nBut, that  would be  the result if the expression ‘business’
\nis given  a narrow  meaning which  the appellant wants us to
\ngive to\t that expression.  It would  indeed be\tanamolous to
\nhold that  all the provisions of the Act including Section 4
\nwhich provides\tfor  the  determination\t of  fair  rent\t and
\nSection 10(1)  which bars  the eviction\t of tenants apply to
\nnonresidential\tbuildings  owned  by  an  Advocate  but\t not
\nSection 10  (3) (a)  (iii) only.  In our view the expression
\nbusiness occurring  in Section\t10(3)(a)(iii) is  used in  a
\nwide sense  so as  to include the practice of the profession
\nof an Advocate.\n<\/p>\n
     The Kerala\t High  Court  in  M.P.\tSethurama  Menon  v.
\nMeenakshi Amma\t& Ors.,\t (supra)  construed  the  expression
\n‘trade or  business’ as connoting commercial activity and as
\nnot including  the practice  of the  legal  profession.\t The
\nlearned\t Judges\t  referred  to\t Article  19(1)(g)   of\t the
\nConstitution, Section  49 of  the Advocates  Act, 1961,\t the
\nMadras\tShops  and  Establishments  Act,  1947\tand  drew  a
\ndistinction between  the words\t‘business’ and ‘profession.’
\nAs mentioned by us earlier, we do not think that it is right
\nto ascribe  to the  word ‘business’  occurring in the Andhra
\nPradesh Buildings  (Lease, Rent\t and Eviction)\tControl Act,
\n1960, the same meaning that the word may have when it occurs
\nin other  statutory provisions. The word must be interpreted
\nin the\tcontext of the statute in which it occurs and not in
\nthe context  of other  statutes or  in a manner alien to the
\ncontext of the statute concerned.\n<\/p>\n
     In Bangalore  Water-Supply &  Sewerage Board etc. v. R.
\nRajappa\t  Ors., (supra)\t Chandrachud, J.  (as he  then\twas)
\nobserved “..  I find  myself  unable  to  accept  the  broad
\nformulation that  a Solicitor’s\t establishment cannot  be an
\nindustry. A  Solicitor, undoubtedly, does not carry on trade
\nor business  when he  acts for\this client or advises him or
\npleads for  him, if and when pleading is permissible to him.
\nHe pursues  a profession  which is variously and justifiably
\ndescribed as learned, liberal or noble.” The observations of
\nthe Learned  Judge were\t made in the context of the question
\nwhether a  Solicitor’s establishment  would fall  within the
\ndefinition of ‘industry’ under the
\n17<\/span>
\nIndustrial Disputes  Act. It  would be\tmost unwise to apply
\nthis A\tobservation to determine whether the practice of the
\nliberal professions  is within the meaning of the expression
\n‘business’ in Rent Control legislation.\n<\/p>\n
     In Stuchbery  & Ors.  v. General Accident Fire and Life
\nAssurance Corporation Ltd., (supra) it was observed that the
\ncarrying on of a Solicitor’s business was the carrying on of
\na profession  and was  not the\tcarrying on  of a  trade  or
\nbusiness within\t the meaning  of that phrase in the Landlord
\nand Tenant  Act, 1927.\tThe  observation  was  made  in\t the
\ncontext of  that Act which made a distinction between ‘trade
\nor business’  and ‘profession’.\t In fact sub-section 3(a) of
\nSection 17  of the  Act expressly said: “for the purposes of
\nthis Section  premises shall  not be  deemed to\t be premises
\nused for  carrying on there at a trade or business by reason
\nof their  being used for the purpose of carrying on there at
\nany profession”.  The question\tin that\t case was  about the
\nright to  compensation for  the\t goodwill  attached  to\t the
\npremises where\tthe “business”\tor  “profession”  was  being
\ncarried on.  We do  not think 1 that the case is of any help
\nto the appellant.\n<\/p>\n
     We may refer here to the decision of Danckwerts, J., in
\nRe Williams’ Will Trusts, Chartered Bank of India, Australia
\nand China  and Another\tv. Williams and Others.(1) where the
\nquestion was whether the bequest to a son for the purpose of
\nstarting him in ‘business’ was affective to start the son in
\nmedical practice.  The\tlearned\t Judge\theld  that  it\tdid,
\nobserving that\tthe word ‘business’ was capable of including
\nthe practice  of a  profession and  that it plainly included
\nthe profession of a Doctor.\n<\/p>\n
     We may  refer to  just one\t more case  i.e. Taramal  v.
\nLaxman Sewak  Surey Ors(2)  where this very question whether
\nthe practice  of law  was a ‘business’ within the meaning of
\nthe  Madhya  Pradesh  Accommodation  Control  Act  came\t for
\nconsideration before  A. P.  Sen, J.  The learned Judge held
\nthat in\t the context  of the  Madhya Pradesh  Act, the\tword
\n‘business’ had\tto be  given a wide meaning so as to include
\nany profession.\n<\/p>\n
     We, therefore,  agree with\t the  High  Court  that\t the
\npractice of  law is  ‘business’ within\tthe meaning  of that
\nexpression in  Section 10(3) (a) (iii) of the Andhra Pradesh
\nBuildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 196(). The
\nappeal is, therefore, dismissed with costs.\n<\/p>\n
M. R.\t\t\t\t\t   Appeal dismissed.\n     (1) [1953] All E.R. 536.\n     (2) [1971] M.P.L.J. 888.\n18<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India S.Mohan Lal vs R. Kondiah on 5 February, 1979 Equivalent citations: 1979 AIR 1132, 1979 SCR (3) 12 Author: O C Reddy Bench: Reddy, O. Chinnappa (J) PETITIONER: S.MOHAN LAL Vs. RESPONDENT: R. KONDIAH DATE OF JUDGMENT05\/02\/1979 BENCH: REDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J) BENCH: REDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J) SARKARIA, RANJIT SINGH CITATION: […]<\/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-187394","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nS.Mohan Lal vs R. Kondiah on 5 February, 1979 - 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\/s-mohan-lal-vs-r-kondiah-on-5-february-1979\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"S.Mohan Lal vs R. Kondiah on 5 February, 1979 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-mohan-lal-vs-r-kondiah-on-5-february-1979\" \/>\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=\"1979-02-04T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-04-06T06:25:45+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=\"14 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-mohan-lal-vs-r-kondiah-on-5-february-1979#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-mohan-lal-vs-r-kondiah-on-5-february-1979\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"S.Mohan Lal vs R. Kondiah on 5 February, 1979\",\"datePublished\":\"1979-02-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-04-06T06:25:45+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-mohan-lal-vs-r-kondiah-on-5-february-1979\"},\"wordCount\":2262,\"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\\\/s-mohan-lal-vs-r-kondiah-on-5-february-1979#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-mohan-lal-vs-r-kondiah-on-5-february-1979\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-mohan-lal-vs-r-kondiah-on-5-february-1979\",\"name\":\"S.Mohan Lal vs R. Kondiah on 5 February, 1979 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1979-02-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-04-06T06:25:45+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-mohan-lal-vs-r-kondiah-on-5-february-1979#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-mohan-lal-vs-r-kondiah-on-5-february-1979\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-mohan-lal-vs-r-kondiah-on-5-february-1979#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"S.Mohan Lal vs R. Kondiah on 5 February, 1979\"}]},{\"@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":"S.Mohan Lal vs R. Kondiah on 5 February, 1979 - 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\/s-mohan-lal-vs-r-kondiah-on-5-february-1979","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"S.Mohan Lal vs R. Kondiah on 5 February, 1979 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-mohan-lal-vs-r-kondiah-on-5-february-1979","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1979-02-04T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-04-06T06:25:45+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":"14 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-mohan-lal-vs-r-kondiah-on-5-february-1979#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-mohan-lal-vs-r-kondiah-on-5-february-1979"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"S.Mohan Lal vs R. Kondiah on 5 February, 1979","datePublished":"1979-02-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-04-06T06:25:45+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-mohan-lal-vs-r-kondiah-on-5-february-1979"},"wordCount":2262,"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\/s-mohan-lal-vs-r-kondiah-on-5-february-1979#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-mohan-lal-vs-r-kondiah-on-5-february-1979","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-mohan-lal-vs-r-kondiah-on-5-february-1979","name":"S.Mohan Lal vs R. Kondiah on 5 February, 1979 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1979-02-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-04-06T06:25:45+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-mohan-lal-vs-r-kondiah-on-5-february-1979#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-mohan-lal-vs-r-kondiah-on-5-february-1979"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-mohan-lal-vs-r-kondiah-on-5-february-1979#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"S.Mohan Lal vs R. Kondiah on 5 February, 1979"}]},{"@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\/187394","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=187394"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/187394\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=187394"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=187394"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=187394"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}