{"id":19346,"date":"2001-10-16T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2001-10-15T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-d-dewan-vs-harbhajan-s-parihar-on-16-october-2001"},"modified":"2016-01-09T06:21:04","modified_gmt":"2016-01-09T00:51:04","slug":"k-d-dewan-vs-harbhajan-s-parihar-on-16-october-2001","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-d-dewan-vs-harbhajan-s-parihar-on-16-october-2001","title":{"rendered":"K.D. Dewan vs Harbhajan S. Parihar on 16 October, 2001"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">K.D. Dewan vs Harbhajan S. Parihar on 16 October, 2001<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: Syed Shah Quadri, S.N. Phukan<\/div>\n<pre>           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil)  4834 of 1999\n\nPETITIONER:\nK.D. DEWAN\n\nRESPONDENT:\nHARBHAJAN S. PARIHAR\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 16\/10\/2001\n\nBENCH:\nSYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI &amp; S.N. PHUKAN\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>JUDGMENT<\/p>\n<p>2001 Supp(4) SCR 241<\/p>\n<p>The following Order of the Court was delivered :\n<\/p>\n<p>This appeal, by special leave, is from the judgment and order of the High<br \/>\nCourt of Punjab and Haryana in C.R. No. 3791 of 1998 dated April 6, 1999.\n<\/p>\n<p>The appellant is the tenant of Suit Premises No. 2235. 1st Floor, Sector<br \/>\n21-C, Chandigarh (for short, &#8216;the Premises&#8217;) of which one Bhakhtawar Singh<br \/>\nwas said to be the owner. The father of the respondent, Bagicha Singh,<br \/>\ninducted the appellant into possession of the premises in 1965. The<br \/>\nrespondent was paying rent to him till his death in 1976. Thereafter, the<br \/>\nappellant has been paying the rent to the respondent. On the ground that he<br \/>\nrequired the premises for his own occupation the respondent filed Rent<br \/>\nApplication No. 231\/1996 under Section 13(3)(a) of the East Punjab Urban<br \/>\nRent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short, &#8216;the Act&#8217;). The appellant denied<br \/>\nthat the relationship between him and the respondent was that of the tenant<br \/>\nand the landlord and further denied that the respondent required the<br \/>\npremises for his personal occupation.\n<\/p>\n<p>On considering the evidence produced by both the sides, the learned Rent<br \/>\nController found that the relationship of landlord and tenant existed<br \/>\nbetween the respondent and the appellant; it was also found that the<br \/>\nrespondent satisfied the requirement of clause (a) of sub-section (3) of<br \/>\nSection 13 of the Act. Accordingly, the learned Rent Controller ordered<br \/>\neviction of the appellant on September 25, 1997. He unsuccessfully<br \/>\nchallenged that order before the Appellate Authority, Chandigarh, who<br \/>\ndismissed the appeal on July 27, 1998. The appellant then carried the<br \/>\nmatter before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana by filing Civil Revision<br \/>\nNo. 3791 of 1998 which was dismissed on April 6, 1999. It is the validity<br \/>\nof that order that is challenged in this appeal.\n<\/p>\n<p>Mr. O.P. Sharma the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant, has<br \/>\nvehemently contended that having regard to the definition of the term<br \/>\n&#8216;landlord&#8217; in clause (c) of Section 2 of the Act, the respondent cannot be<br \/>\ntreated as landlord; he laid emphasis on the words &#8220;every person from time<br \/>\nto time deriving title under a landlord&#8221; and agrued that no document has<br \/>\nbeen filed and no material was placed before the Court to show that the<br \/>\nrespondent derived his title from the heir of the owner of the premises<br \/>\nafter his death. Therefore, he could not be treated as a landlord for<br \/>\npurposes of Section 13(3)(a) of the Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>Mr. A. Mariarputham, the learned counsel for the respondent, submitted that<br \/>\nthe Act maintained distinction between an owner of a premises and a<br \/>\nlandlord of the premises; for purposes of Section 13(3)(a), what is<br \/>\nrequired to be seen is whether the person seeking eviction satisfies the<br \/>\nrequirement of the definition of &#8216;landlord&#8217; and, therefore, all the courts<br \/>\nrightly held that the respondent was the landlord and ordered eviction of<br \/>\nthe appellant.\n<\/p>\n<p>The short question that arises for our consideration is, what is the import<br \/>\nof the word &#8216;landlord&#8217; in clause (c) of Section 2 of the Act?, and whether<br \/>\nthe respondent has rightly been held to be the landlord and entitled to<br \/>\nseek eviction of the appellant.\n<\/p>\n<p>The said provisions reads as follows :\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;Section 2(c): &#8216;landlord&#8217; means any person for the time being entitled to<br \/>\nreceive rent in respect of any building or rented land whether on his own<br \/>\naccount or on behalf, or for the benefit of any other person, or as a<br \/>\ntrustee, guardian, receiver, executor or administrator for any other<br \/>\nperson, and includes a tenant who sublets any building or rented land in<br \/>\nthe manner hereinafter authorised, and, every person from time to time<br \/>\nderiving title under a landlord;&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>A perusal of the provision, quoted above, shows that the following<br \/>\ncategories of persons fall within the meaning of landlord : (1) any person<br \/>\nfor the time being entitled to receive rent in respect of any building or<br \/>\nrented land;\n<\/p>\n<p>(2) a trustee, guardian, receiver, executor or administrator for any other<br \/>\nperson;\n<\/p>\n<p>(3)  a tenant who sublets any building or rented land in the manner<br \/>\nauthorised under the Act and (4) every person from time to time deriving<br \/>\ntitle under a landlord. Among these four categories of persons, brought<br \/>\nwithin the meaning of &#8216;landlord&#8217;, Mr. Sharma sought to derive support from<br \/>\nthe last category. Even so that category refers to a person who derives his<br \/>\ntitle under a landlord and not under an owner of a premises. For purposes<br \/>\nof the said category the transferor of the title referred lo therein must<br \/>\nfall under any of the categories (1) to (3). To be a landlord within the<br \/>\nmeaning of clause (c) of section 2 a person need not necessarily be the<br \/>\nowner; in a vast majority of cases an owner will be a landlord but in many<br \/>\ncases a person other than an owner may as well be a landlord. It may be<br \/>\nthat in a given case the landlord is also an owner but a landlord under the<br \/>\nAct need not be the owner. It may be noted that for purposes of the act the<br \/>\nlegislature has made a distinction between an owner of a premises and a<br \/>\nlandlord. The Act deals with the rights and obligations of a landlord only<br \/>\nas defined therein. Ownership of a premises is immaterial for purposes of<br \/>\nthe Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>Having noticed the definition of the term &#8216;landlord&#8217;, it will be useful to<br \/>\nrefer to Section 13(3)(a) of the Act which reads as follows :\n<\/p>\n<pre>\"Section 13(1)      xxxx                      xxxx\nxxxx\n\n(2)       xxxx                      xxxx                     xxxx\n\n<\/pre>\n<p>(3) (a) A landlord may apply to the Controller for an order directing the<br \/>\ntenant to put the landlord in possession &#8211;\n<\/p>\n<p>(i)    in the case of a residential building, if &#8211; (a)   he requires it for<br \/>\nhis own occupation&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>A plain reading of the provisions extracted above makes it clear that to<br \/>\nclaim a relief thereunder a person must be a landlord within the meaning of<br \/>\nthe terms in Section 2(c); his being owner of the premises is neither a<br \/>\npre-requisite nor a relevant factor.\n<\/p>\n<p>Mr. Sharma relied on the following observation of this Court in <a href=\"\/doc\/1062764\/\">M.M. Quasim<br \/>\nv. Manohar Lal Sharma &amp; others<\/a>. AIR (1981) SC 1113 :-\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;for the purposes of Section 11(l)(c) the expression &#8216;landlord&#8217; could,<br \/>\ntherefore, mean a person who is the owner of the building and who has a<br \/>\nright to remain in occupation and actual possession of the building to the<br \/>\nexclusion of everyone else. It is such a person who can seek to evict the<br \/>\ntenant on the ground that he requires possession in good faith for his own<br \/>\noccupation.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>Mr. Sharma has submitted that the respondent is only a rent collector and<br \/>\nhe cannot be said to be a person who has a right to remain in occupation<br \/>\nand actual possession of the building to the exclusion of everyone else,<br \/>\ntherefore, he cannot be granted relief under clause (a) of sub-section (3)<br \/>\nof Section 13 of the Act. We are afraid we cannot accede to the contention<br \/>\nof the learned counsel. To understand an observation in a judgment it is<br \/>\nnecessary to look into the factual context and the provision which has<br \/>\nfallen for consideration of the Court. In that case Section 11(l)(c) of the<br \/>\nBihar Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1947* (for short,<br \/>\n&#8216;the Bihar Act&#8217;) fell for consideration of this Court. Though the<br \/>\ndefinition of the term &#8216;landlord&#8217; in Section 2(d) of the Bihar Act is much<br \/>\nthe same, its ambit is cut down by Explanation I appended to Section 11(1 )\n<\/p>\n<p>(c) of the said Act which is in the following terms:\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;Explanation I: In this clause the word &#8216;landlord&#8217; shall not include an<br \/>\nagent referred to in clause (0 of Section 2&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>It is plain that in the context of the explanation in that case the meaning<br \/>\nof the term &#8216;landlord&#8217; is understood by excluding an agent for purposes of<br \/>\nrecovery of possession by the landlord for his occupation which is<br \/>\nreasonable and which is in good faith.\n<\/p>\n<p>A similar provision is also to be found in Section 14(l)(e) of the Delhi<br \/>\nRent Control Act, 1958 which specifically excludes an agent from the<br \/>\npurview of landlord for purposes of recovery of possession from the tenant<br \/>\non the ground of personal occupation.\n<\/p>\n<p>From the above discussion it follows that such a truncated meaning of the<br \/>\nterm &#8216;landlord&#8217; cannot be imported in clause (c) of section 2 of the Act<br \/>\nhaving regard to the width of the language employed therein and there is no<br \/>\nother provision in the Act to restrict its meaning for purposes of Section<\/p>\n<p>* &#8220;\/\/. Eviction of tenants &#8211; (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any<br \/>\ncontract or law to the contrary hut subject to the provisions of the<br \/>\nIndustrial Disputes Act, 1947 and to those of Section 12, where a tenant<br \/>\nis, in possession of any building, he shall not be liable to eviction<br \/>\ntherefrom except in execution of a decree passed by the Court on one or<br \/>\nmore of the following grounds:\n<\/p>\n<p>(c) where the building is reasonably and in good faith required by the<br \/>\nlandlord for his own occupation or for the occupation of any person for<br \/>\nwhose benefit the building is held by the landlord :\n<\/p>\n<p>Provided that where the Court thinks that the reasonable requirement of<br \/>\nsuch occu-pation may be substantially satisfied by evicting the tenant from<br \/>\na part only of the building and allowing the tenant to continue occupation<br \/>\nof the rest and the tenant agrees to such occupation, the Court shall pass<br \/>\na decree accordingly, and fix proportionately fair rent for the portion in<br \/>\noccupation of the tenant which portion shall hence forth constitute the<br \/>\nbuilding within the meaning of clause (aa) of Section 2. and the rent so<br \/>\nfixed shall be deemed to be the fair rent fixed under Section 5.\n<\/p>\n<p> Explanation. &#8211; In this clause the word &#8220;landlord&#8221; shall not include an<br \/>\n agent referred to in clause (d) of Section 2&#8243; 13(3)(a) thereof to an owner<br \/>\n of the premises alone. The appellant has been paying monthly rent of the<br \/>\n premises to the respondent from 1976. The respond-ent is thus the landlord<br \/>\n of the premises under the Act and is entitled to seek relief under Section<br \/>\n 13(3)(a) of the Act. In this view of the matter, we find no illegality in<br \/>\n the order of this High Court under challenge. The appeal is without merit<br \/>\n and it is liable to be dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p>Mr. Sharma, however, pleads that some reasonable lime may be granted to the<br \/>\nappellant to vacate the premises. Having regard to the facts and circum-<br \/>\nstances of the case, we are of the view that as the appellant has been in<br \/>\npossession of the premises for more than 35 years, in the interest of<br \/>\njustice he should be granted reasonable time to search an alternative<br \/>\naccommodation, We accordingly grant him time till end of April, 2002,<br \/>\nsubject to his filing an usual undertaking within four weeks from today.\n<\/p>\n<p>The appeal is accordingly dismissed with costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India K.D. Dewan vs Harbhajan S. Parihar on 16 October, 2001 Bench: Syed Shah Quadri, S.N. Phukan CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 4834 of 1999 PETITIONER: K.D. DEWAN RESPONDENT: HARBHAJAN S. PARIHAR DATE OF JUDGMENT: 16\/10\/2001 BENCH: SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI &amp; S.N. PHUKAN JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT 2001 Supp(4) SCR 241 The following Order [&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-19346","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.6 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>K.D. Dewan vs Harbhajan S. Parihar on 16 October, 2001 - 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\/k-d-dewan-vs-harbhajan-s-parihar-on-16-october-2001\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"K.D. Dewan vs Harbhajan S. Parihar on 16 October, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-d-dewan-vs-harbhajan-s-parihar-on-16-october-2001\" \/>\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=\"2001-10-15T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-01-09T00:51:04+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=\"9 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-d-dewan-vs-harbhajan-s-parihar-on-16-october-2001#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-d-dewan-vs-harbhajan-s-parihar-on-16-october-2001\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"K.D. Dewan vs Harbhajan S. Parihar on 16 October, 2001\",\"datePublished\":\"2001-10-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-01-09T00:51:04+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-d-dewan-vs-harbhajan-s-parihar-on-16-october-2001\"},\"wordCount\":1805,\"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\\\/k-d-dewan-vs-harbhajan-s-parihar-on-16-october-2001#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-d-dewan-vs-harbhajan-s-parihar-on-16-october-2001\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-d-dewan-vs-harbhajan-s-parihar-on-16-october-2001\",\"name\":\"K.D. Dewan vs Harbhajan S. Parihar on 16 October, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2001-10-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-01-09T00:51:04+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-d-dewan-vs-harbhajan-s-parihar-on-16-october-2001#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-d-dewan-vs-harbhajan-s-parihar-on-16-october-2001\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-d-dewan-vs-harbhajan-s-parihar-on-16-october-2001#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"K.D. Dewan vs Harbhajan S. Parihar on 16 October, 2001\"}]},{\"@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.D. Dewan vs Harbhajan S. Parihar on 16 October, 2001 - 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\/k-d-dewan-vs-harbhajan-s-parihar-on-16-october-2001","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"K.D. Dewan vs Harbhajan S. Parihar on 16 October, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-d-dewan-vs-harbhajan-s-parihar-on-16-october-2001","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2001-10-15T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-01-09T00:51:04+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":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-d-dewan-vs-harbhajan-s-parihar-on-16-october-2001#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-d-dewan-vs-harbhajan-s-parihar-on-16-october-2001"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"K.D. Dewan vs Harbhajan S. Parihar on 16 October, 2001","datePublished":"2001-10-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-01-09T00:51:04+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-d-dewan-vs-harbhajan-s-parihar-on-16-october-2001"},"wordCount":1805,"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\/k-d-dewan-vs-harbhajan-s-parihar-on-16-october-2001#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-d-dewan-vs-harbhajan-s-parihar-on-16-october-2001","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-d-dewan-vs-harbhajan-s-parihar-on-16-october-2001","name":"K.D. Dewan vs Harbhajan S. Parihar on 16 October, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2001-10-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-01-09T00:51:04+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-d-dewan-vs-harbhajan-s-parihar-on-16-october-2001#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-d-dewan-vs-harbhajan-s-parihar-on-16-october-2001"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-d-dewan-vs-harbhajan-s-parihar-on-16-october-2001#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"K.D. Dewan vs Harbhajan S. Parihar on 16 October, 2001"}]},{"@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\/19346","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=19346"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/19346\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=19346"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=19346"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=19346"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}