{"id":193862,"date":"2006-06-14T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2006-06-13T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bahadurmul-sowcar-vs-m-r-lakshmanan-on-14-june-2006"},"modified":"2014-08-17T23:01:48","modified_gmt":"2014-08-17T17:31:48","slug":"bahadurmul-sowcar-vs-m-r-lakshmanan-on-14-june-2006","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bahadurmul-sowcar-vs-m-r-lakshmanan-on-14-june-2006","title":{"rendered":"Bahadurmul Sowcar vs M.R.Lakshmanan on 14 June, 2006"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
Bahadurmul Sowcar vs M.R.Lakshmanan on 14 June, 2006<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS           \n\nDated: 14\/06\/2006 \n\nCoram \n\nThe Hon'ble Mr.JUSTICE S.RAJESWARAN       \n\nC.R.P.(NPD) No.2313 of 2005  \nand C.R.P.(NPD) 2314 and 2315 of 2005  \n\n\n1.Bahadurmul Sowcar  \n2.Subramani \n                                        .. Petitioners in C.R.P.\n                                           NPD No.2313\/05\nBahadurmul Sowcar  \nRep.by his Power of Attorney\nAgent Subramanian  \n                                        .. Petitioner in C.R.P\n                                           NPD Nos.2314 & 2315\/05\n-Vs-\n\n$1.M.R.Lakshmanan   \n2.M.R.Narayanan  \n3.M.R.Muthiah \n4.M.R.Sevugan Chetti \n5.M.R.Avichi\n6.P.L.Chidambaram  \n7.P.L.Sathappan \n8.P.L.Muthiah                           .. Respondents in C.R.P.<\/pre>\n
                                           NPD Nos.2313 &2314\/05.\n<\/p>\n
Muthiah                                         .. Respondent in C.R.P.\n                                                           NPD No.2315\/05.\n\n<\/pre>\n
        Revision Petitions filed against  the  judgment  dated  29.8.2005,  in
\nR.C.A.Nos.2,3  of  2003  &  7\/1997,  on  the  file of the Principal Sub-Judge,
\nTiruvannamalai (Appellate Authority) confirming the order  dated  25.2  .2003,
\n25.2.2003  and  24.10.1997 in H.R.C.O.P.Nos.16\/1998, 9\/2000 and RCOP No.3\/1997
\nrespectively, on the file of the  Principal  District  Munsif,  Tiruvannamalai
\n(Rent Controller).\n<\/p>\n
!For Petitioners        :  Mr.A.Venkatesan\n\n^For Respondents        :  Mr.T.V.Ramanujam,\n                Senior Counsel, for\n                Mr.T.V.Krishnamachari.\n\n:COMMON ORDER      \n\n        I.  C.R.P.NPD No.2313\/2005:\n\n<\/pre>\n
        The unsuccessful tenant before both the authorities below is the first
\nrevision petitioner.  H.R.C.O.P.No.16\/1998 was filed by the respondents herein
\nunder  Sec.10(2)(ii)(a)  and 10(2)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings(Lease & Rent
\nControl) Act, 1960 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’) on the grounds of subletting
\nand wilful default against the revision petitioners for an order  of  eviction
\nof  the  revision  petitioner  from the property bearing Door No.1, Asaliamman
\nKoil Street, Tiruvannamalai Town.  The respondents have stated in the eviction
\npetition that the premises in  question  was  occupied  by  the  1st  revision
\npetitioner 3 5 years ago on an yearly rent of Rs.750\/-.  The petition premises
\nwas  originally  belonged  to one Murugappa Chettiar and Palaniyappa Chettiar.
\nThe said Murugappa Chettiar died in the year 1992 and Palaniappa Chettiar died
\nin 1975.  The respondents 1 to 5 herein are the sons of Murugappa Chettiar and
\nrespondents 6 to 8 are the sons of  Palaniappa  Chettiar.    Thus  all  the  8
\npersons joined  together  and  filed the eviction petition.  It is the case of
\nthe landlords that the first revision petitioner\/tenant did not pay  the  rent
\nfrom  the  year 1992 onwards and he has been squatting on the property without
\npaying any rent for the past 5 years.   In  anticipation  of  filing  eviction
\npetition, the 1st revision petitioner suddenly sent a notice on14.7.1995 along
\nwith a Demand Draft for Rs.2250\/-.  In that notice dated 14.7.1995, the tenant
\nhas stated  that  he  has  already  filed  a petition in H.R.C.O.P.  No.2\/1988
\nbefore the Rent Controller through his power of attorney to deposit  the  rent
\ninto court  and  the same was allowed.  The tenant has also informed about the
\nfiling of H.R.C.O.P.No.14\/1990 and the said H.R.C.O.P.No.14\/1990 was dismissed
\non 29.6.1993 for not taking  steps  to  bring  the  Legal  Representatives  of
\nMurugappa Chettiar.    The  tenant  has  further  informed in the notice dated
\n14.7.95 that he deposited the rent into court till 1992.  As he could not find
\nout the Legal Representatives of Murugappa  Chettiar  in  spite  of  his  best
\nefforts,  he  could  not  pay  the  same  from  September  1992  to till date.
\nAccording to the tenant, he came to know about the 3rd respondent herein  only
\nnow  through  his  lawyer  and  therefore  he  sent  the  notice dated 14.7.95
\nenclosing a demand draft for Rs.2,250\/- being the rent  for  the  period  from
\nSeptember 1992  to  August  1995.    To  this  notice  dated  14.7.95, the 3rd
\nrespondent herein sent a reply on 14.12.1995 stating that  having  kept  quiet
\nfor  the  past  5  years  without  sending the rent, the tenant could not come
\nforward to pay the rent and returned the demand  draft  sent  by  the  tenant.
\nSubsequently,  the tenant\/first petitioner herein sent a sum of Rs.750\/- along
\nwith the notice dated 9.7.1996 and it was again returned by the  landlords  in
\ntheir notice  dated  23.9.96.    The respondents herein further alleged in the
\nRCOP that the 1st petitioner sublet the property to  the  2nd  petitioner  and
\nhence  the  Revision  Petitioners  are  liable  to be evicted on the ground of
\nwilful default and subletting.\n<\/p>\n
        2.  The 1st petitioner herein filed a counter in HRCOP No.16\/1998  and
\nresisted the  eviction  proceedings.    In his counter, the tenant stated that
\neven though he came to know about the death of Murugappa Chettiar in the  year
\n1993, only in 1995 he could obtain the particulars of Legal Representatives of
\nMurugappa  Chettiar and immediately he sent a notice dated 14.7.95 enclosing a
\ndemand draft for Rs.2,250\/- being the rent for the period from September  1992
\nto August1995.    Even  when  Murugappa  Chettiar  was  alive,  he filed HRCOP
\nNos.2\/1988 and 14\/1990 and has been depositing the  rent  into  court.    When
\nMurugappa  Chettiar  died,  as  he  could  not  know  the particulars of Legal
\nRepresentatives of Murugappa Chettiar,  he  could  not  take  steps  in  HRCOP
\nNo.14\/1990 which was dismissed on 29.8.1993.  The moment he came to know about
\nthe  3rd  respondent  herein, he immediately sent the arrears of Rs.2,250\/- by
\ndemand draft along with notice dated 14.7.95.  Even for the  period  September
\n1995  to  August  1996  he  sent  a demand draft on 9.7.96 but it was returned
\nwithout any justifiable reasons.  Therefore he sent the amounts by Money Order
\non 22.11.96 and that was also refused.  Therefore he  filed  HRCOP  No,.3\/1996
\nfor  depositing  the  rent from September 1992 to August 1996 but the same was
\ndismissed against which an appeal in RCA  No.7\/1997  was  filed  and  pending.
\nTherefore,  according  to the tenant, he has not committed any default at all.
\nEven assuming that he has committed default, it is not wilful default.\n<\/p>\n
        3.  The Rent Controller by order dated 25.2.2003 ordered  eviction  on
\nthe  ground  of  wilful default, after holding that subletting was not proved.
\nThe appeal was filed in RCA No.2\/2003 was  also  dismissed  by  the  Appellate
\nAuthority on  29.8.2005.    Challenging  the  same, this revision petition was
\nfiled by the tenant.\n<\/p>\n
        4.  Heard the learned counsel for  the  petitioners  and  the  learned
\nSenior Counsel  appearing  for  the  respondent.    I  have  also  perused the
\ndocuments filed in support of their submissions.\n<\/p>\n
        5.  The learned counsel appearing for the  petitioner  submitted  that
\nboth  the authorities below have not rendered a proper finding on the basis of
\nthe evidence let in by the parties.  He  further  submitted  that  the  tenant
\ncould  not  continue  to  deposit the rent in HRCOP No.2\/198 8 as the Power of
\nAttorney who  filed  the  petition  on  behalf  of  the  tenant  passed  away.
\nSimilarly,  the  tenant could not deposit the rent in HRCOP No.14\/1990, as the
\nsame was dismissed for not taking steps to bring the legal heirs  of  deceased
\nMurugappa Chettiar,  despite  his  best efforts to trace them.  As soon as the
\ntenants came to know about one of the  legal  heirs,  he  immediately  sent  a
\nDemand  Draft  for  Rs.2,250\/-  and another Demand Draft for Rs.750\/-, both of
\nthem were returned.  Even the two Money Orders sent by the tenants  were  also
\nreturned and immediately he filed a petition in HRCOP No.3\/1996 for depositing
\nthe rent from 9\/1992 to 8\/1996.  In such circumstances, if the totality of the
\nsituation  is  taken  into consideration, according to the learned counsel for
\nthe petitioners, the tenant is not said to have committed wilful default.\n<\/p>\n
        6.  In support  of  his  contentions,  the  learned  counsel  for  the
\npetitioners relied on the following judgments:-\n<\/p>\n
(1) AIR 1985  S.C.  582 (S.Sundaram v.  V.R.Pattabhiraman); (2)1998(I) CTC 531
\n(Purandara Vittal v.  Radha Bai); (3) 1999(III) CTC 512 ( Subbiah,  S.M.    v.
\nS.Nandappan)<\/a>; (4) 2002-2-L.W.  559  (Loganathan, S.  v.  V.  S.Rangasamy)<\/a>; (5)
\n2003-4-L.W.671 (P.M.Punnoose  v.    K.M.Munneruddin   and   others<\/a>)   and   6)
\n2004-3-L.W.  487 (V.Subramanian v.  J.Venkatraman &<\/a> another).\n<\/p>\n
        7.    Per  contra,  the  learned  Senior  Counsel  appearing  for  the
\nrespondents  submitted  that  both  the  authorities  below  have  elaborately
\nconsidered the evidence let in and on the basis of the evidence, have rendered
\na  finding  that  the  tenant  has  committed  wilful  default which cannot be
\ninterfered with by this court under Sec.25 of the Act in the  absence  of  any
\nillegality or perversity.\n<\/p>\n
        8.  He relied on the judgment of this court reported in 2000-2-L.W.  7
\n08 (Vasuvaithiar,P.  v.  R.M.Rangoo Chettiar).\n<\/p>\n
        9.  In  AIR  1985  S.C.    582  cited supra, the Hon’ble Supreme Court
\nobserved that default simplicitor would not be sufficient to evict the tenant.
\nIt must further be shown that the default is wilful.  Only when the default is
\nwilful, the tenant can be evicted.  Wilful default  means,  a  deliberate  and
\nintentional default knowing fully well the legal consequences thereof.\n<\/p>\n
        10.  In 1998(I) CTC 531 cited supra, this court held as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
        8.   The  learned  counsel  for the revision petitioner, brought to my
\nnotice a judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court of India reported in Appavoo
\n(dead) by L.Rs.  V.  Sree Dharma Vinayakan Dhamraraja  Devasthanam,<\/a>  1991  (1)
\nM.L.J.  41.  That case arose out of the judgment from the Tamil Nadu Buildings
\n(Lease and Rent Control) Act.  Default was alleged in the payment of the rent.
\nThere was a demand for a higher rent by the landlord.  All the arrears of rent
\nat the  agreed  rate  was  paid  by  the tenant.  The appellate Judge took the
\nconduct of the landlord demanding rent at a higher rate than the  agreed  rent
\ninto  consideration as a circumstance to find against the landlord’s plea that
\nthe tenant being a wilful defaulter.  This reasoning is specifically  referred
\nto in  the  judgment  of  Honourable  Supreme  Court of India.  The Honourable
\nJudges upheld the order of the appellate authority and set aside the order  of
\neviction passed  by this Court in the revision.  In this case also, there is a
\ndemand for a higher rent which is at eight  times  the  original  rent.    The
\nlandlords  admitted  before  the  court that the rent was only Rs.50\/- and not
\nRs.400\/-.  This conduct of the landlords is also taken into account by  me  in
\nholding  that  the  tenant  cannot be said to be guilty of committing a wilful
\ndefault in the payment of the rent.  It is no doubt true that the rent for the
\nmonth of March 1983 sent by the tenant was refused by the landlords.    It  is
\nalso on record that the refused rent for March, 1983 was not sent again by the
\ntenant.  All the tenant brought to my notice a judgment of this Court reported
\nin G.Kanniah Chetty  V.   H.Subramaniam (died) and others, 1994 T.L.N.J.  124.
\nIn that case also, the  rent  sent  for  February  1983  was  refused  by  the
\nlandlord.   The  subsequent rents for the subsequent months alone were sent by
\nthe tenant and they were also refused.  In that context,  a  similar  argument
\nwas advanced before the learned single Judge and it was dealt with as follows:
\n“The  point urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that under each
\nmonth, he was sending only Rs.250 which represents only one month rent and  no
\narrears of rent were sent.  This contention is rightly repelled by the learned
\ncounsel  for the respondent who would submit that once a valid tender is made,
\nthere is no need to make again a second tender with regard to the same amount.
\nI find that this submission made by the learned counsel for the respondent  is
\ncorrect.  So, it cannot be stated that there was no valid tender.”
\nUnder  these circumstances, it cannot be held that not sending the March, 1983
\nrent again, which was earlier refused, would in any way be  held  against  the
\ntenant.   The  rent for March, 1983 was validly tendered and illegally refused
\nby the landlord.\n<\/p>\n
        9.  For all the reasons stated above, I am of the  firm  opinion  that
\nthe  courts below have committed a serious error in law as well as on facts in
\nholding that the tenant had committed wilful default.  The learned counsel for
\nthe respondent brought to my notice a judgment of this Court, wherein  it  has
\nbeen  held that when the courts below concurrently found on a particular point
\nagainst a party to it, it cannot be possible for this court  to  interfere  in
\nsuch  a concurrent finding unless those findings could be attacked as perverse
\nfindings.  I too agree with the law laid down by this Court.  However  at  the
\nsame  time, I do not want to lose sight of the fact that when the landlord had
\nnot established his case of wilful default, he is not entitled to an order  of
\neviction.   To  grant  relief  in  favour of the landlord in such a situation,
\nwould amount to rendering great injustice to a tenant.  The power of  revision
\nunder  Section  25  of  the Tamil Nadu Buildings ( Lease and Rent Control) Act
\nappears to be wider than the power of revision of this court under Section 115
\nof the Code of Civil Procedure.  Under Section 25 of the above said Act,  this
\nCourt  can  satisfy  itself  as  to  the  regularity of such proceeding or the
\ncorrectness, legality or propriety of any decision or  order  passed.    Under
\nthese  circumstances  and in view of the power of revision under Section 25 of
\nthe above Act, I am inclined to interfere in this case to  render  justice  to
\nthe tenant.   Accordingly  the  revision  is  allowed  with cost.  The cost is
\nquantified at Rs.500.\n<\/p>\n
        11.  In the above case, the arrears of rent was for three months  from
\nMarch 1983  to May 1983.  When March 1983 rent was tendered by this tenant, it
\nwas refused by the landlords and thereafter rent was not sent and  this  court
\nheld that, not sending the rent of March 1983 again which was earlier refused,
\nwould not  be  held  against  the  tenant.  This court further held that under
\nSec.25 of the Act High court can satisfy itself as to the  regularity  of  the
\nproceedings  before  the  authorities or correctness, legality or propriety of
\nany decision or order passed.\n<\/p>\n
        12.  In 1999(III) CTC 512 cited supra, this court held that by failing
\nto advert to the admission of the landlord regarding payment of  rent  by  the
\ntenant  before  filing  of the RCOP itself and allowing the eviction petition,
\nthe  authorities  below  committed  material  irregularity  in  the  order  of
\neviction.\n<\/p>\n
        13.  In 2002-2-L.W.559 cited supra, this court held as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
15.   It is, further seen that the tenant issued notice under Ex.P-4 directing
\nthe landlord to specify the bank for depositing the rent.  The above notice is
\ndated 1.7.98 i.e., prior to the filing of R.C.O.P.  The conduct of the  tenant
\nin  sending  two  months  rent  by  money  order before the date of filing the
\nR.C.O.P and issuing notice to the landlord directing him to specify  the  name
\nof  the bank to enable the tenant to deposit the rent, will only show that the
\ntenant has not committed any wilful default in payment of rent.  In any event,
\nthe above delay and conduct of the tenant will not amount  to  wilful  default
\nmuch less  supine indifference.  The Rent Controller has not properly adverted
\nto the above aspect of the case and therefore, I have no hesitation in holding
\nthat the finding of the Rent Controller, which is confirmed by  the  Appellate
\nAuthority, that the revision petition has committed wilful default is based on
\nmisreading of the evidence.\n<\/p>\n
16.   Learned  counsel for the revision petitioner also relies upon a decision
\nof this Court reported in Tamil Nadu Motors V.  N.Lakshmi<\/a> (1999  -3-L.W  284),
\nwherein it is held thus:-\n<\/p>\n
        “To arrive at a finding that the tenant is in wilful default, the mere
\nfact  that  the tenant is in arrears of rent would not be enough and the Court
\nhas to consider whether there  has  been  intentional  violation  of  a  clear
\nobligation to pay the rent”\n<\/p>\n
        The  Supreme Court had also occasion to consider a similar plea in the
\ncase reported in M\/s.Chordia Automobiles V.  Moosa<\/a>  (2000  (II)  MLJ  10  8  =
\n2001-1-L.W.  737.  In the above decision, the Supreme Court has held thus:-\n<\/p>\n
        “Further,  the conduct of the appellant throughout in the past was not
\nthat of  the  defaulter  or  irregular  payer  of  rent.    Thus   all   these
\ncircumstances  cumulatively  come  to  only  one conclusion that the appellant
\ncannot be held to be a wilful defaulter”\n<\/p>\n
        Even though the payment of rent into Court after filing R.C.O.P is not
\nrelevant in deciding the question of wilful default, the conduct of the tenant
\nin tendering two months rent by money order, even in the month of  June  1998,
\nwill  establish  the  case  of  the  tenant  that  he has not committed wilful
\ndefault.  If the principles of law  laid  down  in  the  above  decisions  are
\nconsidered  along  with  the admitted facts in this case, it would practically
\nnegative the contention of the  landlord  that  the  revision  petitioner  has
\ncommitted wilful  default in payment of rent.  Hence, I hold that the findings
\nof the Courts below that the tenant has committed wilful default are liable to
\nbe set aside.\n<\/p>\n
        14.  In the above judgment, this court after considering  the  conduct
\nof  sending  two  months’ rent by Money Order before the date of filing of the
\nRCOP and issuing notice to the landlord directing him to specify the  name  of
\nthe  bank  to  deposit the rent, held that the tenant has not committed wilful
\ndefault.\n<\/p>\n
        15.  In 2003-4-L.W.671 cited supra, the  Hon’ble  Supreme  Court  held
\nthat  when  the  tenant  has  always made an effort at paying or tendering the
\nrent, the delay or default, if any, attributable to the tenant  is  bona  fide
\nand the same cannot be held to be wilful.\n<\/p>\n
        16.  In 2004-3-L.W.  487 cited supra, this court after considering the
\nconduct  of  the  tenant  in paying the monthly arrears from November 19 86 to
\nMarch 1987 on the first hearing date of the RCOP, held that the petitioner has
\nnot committed any wilful default.\n<\/p>\n
        17.  By relying on the above judgments, the learned  counsel  for  the
\npetitioners contended that the delay attributable to the tenants is not wilful
\nand therefore the orders of the authorities below are liable to be set aside.\n<\/p>\n
        18.  In 2000-2-L.W.708 cited supra, this court held as follows:-
\n“14.Under Rent Control Act, rent is payable as and when it becomes due.  It is
\na  statutory  obligation  on  the part of tenant to pay rent, according to the
\ntenancy agreement.  If any date is fixed for payment, the same will have to be
\npaid within 15 days from the due date and  if  no  fixed  date  is  given  for
\npayment, by  the  end  of month following the month for which rent is due.  In
\ncase tenant is not paying the amount as per the provisions, he must be  deemed
\nto be  defaulter  in  paying  rent.    By paying Rs.4,550\/- on 18.3.1994 after
\nfiling application itself shows that tenant has committed default  in  payment
\nof rent and that is why he has paid the amount in lump.  Subsequent payment of
\nRs.975\/-  also  makes  it  clear  that  more  amount was due as on the date of
\neviction petition.  So, the contention taken by tenant that he has paid entire
\nrent as and when it becomes due was rightly rejected  by  Rent  Controller  as
\nwell as Appellate authority.\n<\/p>\n
15.   Even  if  the  tenant  has  paid  the  entire  rent during the course of
\nproceedings, that by itself will not absolve him from contending  that  he  is
\nnot wilful  defaulter.    AS  rightly  found  by Appellate Authority, when the
\nlitigation is pending between parties, tenant should  have  been  little  more
\ncareful  in  paying  rent as and when it became due to discharge the statutory
\nobligation.  Even from the counter, it is clear that he used to pay the amount
\nin lump only and not on the due dates.  From 21.11.1991 till 31.12.1993,  i.e.
\nfor more than two years, tenant has paid only a sum of Rs.1,300\/-, is admitted
\nby him.    That admission has been given importance by the Appellate Authority
\nin his judgment.  Appellate authority has stated thus,<\/p>\n
(Vernacular portion deleted)<\/p>\n
16.  If tenant has paid only  four  months  rent  during  the  entire  period,
\nnaturally  he  has  to  explain why rent was not paid for more than 20 months.
\nBut at the same time, he took a false contention that he has paid  the  entire
\narrears and  not liable to pay any rent.  After having taken such a contention
\nand paying the amount in lumpsum during the course of this  proceedings  shows
\nthat the intention of tenant was not bona fide and he has taken the contention
\nknowing full  well  that the same is false.  Under the above circumstances, he
\ncould be termed only as ‘wilful defaulter’.  By taking false  contention,  his
\nintention  is  clear  that  he  does  not  want  to  pay any rent unless he is
\ncompelled to do so.  Authorities below are justified in holding that tenant is
\na wilful defaulter and he is liable to be evicted.\n<\/p>\n
        19.  In the above case, this court held  that  there  is  a  statutory
\nobligation  on  the  part  of  the  tenant  to  pay  the rent according to the
\nagreement and if the tenant is not paying the rent as per the agreement, he is
\na defaulter.  Even  if  he  has  paid  the  rent  during  the  course  of  the
\nproceedings,  it would not absolve him from contending that he is not a wilful
\ndefaulter.  Further, when the litigation is pending  between  parties,  tenant
\nshould  have been little more careful in paying rent as and when it became due
\nto discharge the statutory obligation.\n<\/p>\n
        20.  In the light of the above judgments let me consider the facts  of
\nthe present case.\n<\/p>\n
        21.   The  only  point  that arises for consideration in this revision
\npetition is whether the non-payment of monthly arrears by the  1st  petitioner
\nfor  the  period  from  September  1992  to August 1995 and for the subsequent
\nperiod is wilful or not.\n<\/p>\n
        22.  The reason given by the tenant for not  depositing  the  rent  in
\nHRCOP No.2\/1988 in which he got an order in his favour is that as the Power of
\nAttorney  passed  away,  he  could  not  deposit the rent in that petition and
\ntherefore he filed another petition in HRCOP No.14\/1990 for deposit of rent.\n<\/p>\n
        23.  I am unable to accept this reason of the tenant became the  death
\nof the Power of Attorney does not abate the petition itself and the tenant can
\nvery well  continue depositing the rent in HRCOP No.2\/1988.  Instead, he chose
\nto file HRCOP No.14\/1990 but the same  was  dismissed  on  29.8.1993  for  not
\ntaking steps  to  bring the Legal Representatives on record.  The reason given
\nby the tenant for not taking steps is that he could not get particulars of the
\nLegal Representatives of the deceased  Murugappa  Chettiar  despite  his  best
\nefforts.   This  reason is also not acceptable to me, as, in the oral evidence
\nof R.W.2, he has admitted that no steps were taken to pay the rent  from  1992
\nto 19  96.    He  further deposed that the landlord and his children have been
\nvisiting the place for deepam and the temple at Thiruvannamalai for  the  past
\n20 years.    In such circumstances, what prevented the tenant from approaching
\nthe children of the landlord f or the payment of rent is not at all  explained
\nby the tenants.\n<\/p>\n
        24.   Insofar as the return of the demand draft and the money order is
\nconcerned, as already stated, in stead of paying  the  rent  then  and  there,
\naccording  to the agreement, the tenant has suddenly woken up from his slumber
\nand sent a demand draft for  three  years  rent  in  one  lumpsum.    In  such
\ncircumstances,  the landlord is within his right to return the demand draft as
\nthe tenant has violated his statutory obligation  to  pay  the  rent  when  it
\nbecame due.    Even  otherwise,  when  it was returned, the tenant must invoke
\nSec.8(5) of the Act before the landlord gets a cause  of  action.    Elaborate
\nprocedure  is contemplated under Sec.8 of the Act and the provisions are to be
\nstrictly complied with by the tenant if he wants  to  take  advantage  of  the
\nsame.   The  tenant has to take steps one after another as stipulated and only
\nif the landlord still refuses to receive the rent,  the  tenant  can  come  to
\ncourt under  Sec.8(5)  of  the  Act.   The tenant cannot jump procedural steps
\ncontemplated under Section 8 of the  Act.    It  is  obvious  that  the  1  st
\npetitioner has not followed the procedures contemplated under Sec.8 of the Act
\nand he has jumped the procedure in filing the HRCOP No.3\/1996 and the same was
\nalso dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
        25.   In  such circumstances, I am of the opinion that the evidence on
\nrecord would undoubtedly point an accusing finger at the tenant and  both  the
\nauthorities  have rightly come to the conclusion on the basis of evidence that
\nit is a case of wilful default.  Sitting in revision under  Sec.25of  the  Act
\n1960,  I  am  not  inclined  to  interfere with the concurrent findings of the
\nauthorities below  as  I  do  not  find  any  illegality  or  irregularity  or
\nperversity in it.\n<\/p>\n
        26.   In  the  result,  the  Civil  Revision  Petition is liable to be
\ndismissed as devoid of merits.\n<\/p>\n
        II.  C.R.P.NPD Nos.2314 & 2315 of 2005:\n<\/p>\n
        27.  (a) C.R.P.NPD No.2315\/2005:\n<\/p>\n
C.R.P.NPD No.2315\/2005 is filed against the judgment dated 29.8.2005  made  in
\nRCA No.7\/1997.    RCA  No.7\/1997  was  filed by the 1st petitioner against the
\norder dated 24.10.1997 made  in  RCOP  No.3\/1997.    In  RCOP  No.3\/1997,  the
\nrevision  petitioner  prayed  to permit him to deposit the rent from September
\n1992 to August 1996 and also  the  future  rent  into  court.    The  revision
\npetitioner  has  stated  that  he had filed a petition in HRCOP Nos.2\/1988 and
\n14\/1990 for depositing the rent.  But he could not continue to do  so  as  his
\nPower  of  Attorney  passed  away  and  HRCOP No.14\/1990 was dismissed for not
\nhaving taken  steps  to  bring  the  Legal  Representatives  of  the  deceased
\nMurugappa Chettiar  on  record.    Once  he  came to know about the respondent
\nherein as the son of Murugappa Chettiar, he immediately sent  a  notice  dated
\n14.7.1995  to him enclosing a demand draft for Rs.2,250\/- being the arrears of
\nrent for the period September 1992 to August 1995.  But the same was  returned
\nby the  respondent.   He sent the rent for the period September 1995 to August
\n1996 by demand draft on 9.7.1996  and  the  same  was  also  returned  by  the
\nrespondent.   On  22.11.96  he  sent  a  sum  of Rs.1,000\/- and another sum of
\nRs.2,000\/- by money order.  The same was refused by the respondent.  Hence  he
\nfiled the above petition under Sec.8(5) of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
        28.   This petition was resisted by the respondent by filing a counter
\nby stating that having filed two similar petitions for the same relief earlier
\nthe revision petitioner cannot be permitted to file another petition  for  the
\nsame relief.    Having  kept  quiet  for  three  years and failed to discharge
\nstatutory duties he cannot take recourse to Sec.8(5) of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
        29.  The Rent Controller  by  order  dated  24.10.1997  dismissed  the
\npetition  by  holding  that  having committed wilful default in the payment of
\nrent, the revision petitioner should not be allowed to deposit the rent  under
\nSec.8(5) of  the  Act.    Against this order, the revision petitioner filed an
\nappeal in RCA No.7\/1997 and the Appellate Authority  has  also  dismissed  the
\nappeal  on  29.8.2005  by  holding  that having filed RCOP No.2\/1988 and got a
\nfavourable order, the tenant should have continued to deposit the rent in that
\npetition itself.  Even another petition filed in RCOP No.14\/1990  was  allowed
\nto  be  dismissed  and  having failed to pay the rent for the past three years
\nwithout proper explanation, the revision petitioner should not be permitted to
\ndeposit the rent into court under Sec.8(5) of  the  Act.    Challenging  these
\norders, this revision petition has been filed by the petitioner\/tenant.\n<\/p>\n
        30.   The  learned  counsel for the petitioner submitted that both the
\nauthorities below have committed illegality in not permitting  the  petitioner
\nto deposit the rent.\n<\/p>\n
        31.   Per  contra,  the  learned  Senior  Counsel  appearing  for  the
\nrespondent-landlord supported the orders of the authorities below  relying  on
\nthe judgment of this court reported in 1997-2-L.W.  567 ( Sundararajan, S.  v.
\nS.A.Viswanathan Chetty and<\/a> another).\n<\/p>\n
        32.   Sec.8  of  the Act has to be read along with Sec.10(2)(i) of the
\nAct.  It is the statutory duty of the tenant to tender the rent in  accordance
\nwith Sections  10 (2)(i) of the Act.  It means that Sec.8 of the Act should be
\ninvoked by the  tenant  before  the  landlord  gets  a  cause  of  action  for
\nnon-payment of  rent  in time.  A defaulter is not entitled to the benefits of
\nthe Act.  Once the landlord gets cause of action, the  subsequent  refusal  by
\nthe landlord  is justified.  When a tenant invokes Section 8(5) of the Act, it
\nis his duty to pay the rent in court as and when it becomes due.   Instead  of
\nactually paying the rent to landlord, he gets discharged by paying the rent in
\ncourt.   That means, the court becomes the agent of the landlord and gives the
\ntenant a discharge.  Having  committed  default  wilfully  and  intentionally,
\nfully knowing about the consequences arising thereof, a tenant is not entitled
\nto invoke Sec.8(5) of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
        33.   In  this case, it is not in dispute that the revision petitioner
\nfiled HRCOP No.2\/1988 and got a favourable order for depositing the rent.   No
\nacceptable  reason  was  given  by the tenant for discontinuing the deposit of
\nrent in that petition except by saying that Power of  Attorney  who  initiated
\nthe petition  passed  away.   The second petition filed for the same relief in
\nHRCOP No.14\/1990 was also allowed to be dismissed.  Thereafter, admittedly  no
\nrent  was  paid and only in June 1995, a demand draft was taken for the rental
\narrears for the period from September 1992 to August  1995  and  sent  to  the
\nrespondentlandlord.   Except  by  saying  that he was not able to find out the
\nLegal Representatives of Murugappa Chettiar, no other reason was given for the
\ndefault of three years.  Even the evidence let in would prove that  the  Legal
\nRepresentatives are visiting the place of the tenant every now and then and in
\nsuch  circumstances,  the  tenant  committed  wilful  default as held by me in
\nC.R.P.NPD No.2313\/2005.  Therefore, a cause of action arose for  the  landlord
\nfor  evicting  the  tenant  and  applying  the  law laid down by this court in
\n1997-2- L.W.  567 (supra), this revision petition is liable  to  be  dismissed
\nand the orders of the authorities below are to be upheld.\n<\/p>\n
(b) C.R.P.No.2314\/2005:\n<\/p>\n
        34.   This  revision  petition  has  been filed by the same tenant who
\nfiled C.R.P.(NPD)No.2313 of 2005 and C.R.P.(NPD) No.2315\/2005.  In this  case,
\nthe  revision  petitioner has challenged the judgment dated 29.8.2005 rendered
\nin RCA No.3\/2003.  RcA No.3\/2003 was filed against the order  dated  25.2.2003
\nmade  in  HRCOP  No.9\/200  0,  dismissing  the  petition filed by the revision
\npetitioner, permitting him to deposit the rent from September 2000  to  August
\n2001 and  also the future rent into court.  In HRCOP No.9\/2000, the petitioner
\nhas stated that as he was not able to  trace  the  legal  heirs  of  Murugappa
\nChettiar,  in  spite  of  his best efforts, he could not send the rent for the
\nperiod from September 1992 to August 1995.  In July 1995 he came to know about
\nthe 3rd  respondent  as  the  son  of  the  deceased  Murugappa  Chettair  and
\nimmediately  he  sent  the rent for the period by sending demand draft but the
\nsame was refused by the 3rd respondent.  He again sent  another  demand  draft
\nfor  the  period  from  September  1995  to  August 1995 and the same was also
\nrefused.  Thereafter, he sent two money orders for a  sum  of  Rs.3,000\/-  and
\nthat was  also  refused.    He file d HRCOP No.3\/1997 to deposit the rent from
\nSeptember 1992 to August 1996 and after  contest  it  was  dismissed  and  the
\nappeal filed  by  him  in  RCA  No.7\/1997  is  pending.  In the meanwhile, the
\neviction petition was filed by the respondents herein in HRCOP No.16\/1998  and
\npending  HRCOP.No.16\/1998  the  revision  petitioner  paid a sum of Rs.4,500\/-
\nbeing the rent for the period September 1992 to August 1998 and thereafter  he
\nhe paid another sum of Rs.1,500\/- for the period from September 1998 to August
\n2000.  These amounts were paid to the counsel for the respondents herein.  But
\nwhen  the  rent  was  paid for the period September 2000 to August 2001 to the
\nvery same counsel by the petitioner herein, he refused to  receive  the  same.
\nThereafter,  he  sent the rent by money order and the same was returned by the
\n3rd respondent.  Hence he filed the above petition under Sec.8(5)of  the  Act.
\nIt was  resisted  by  the 3rd respondent herein by filing a counter.  The Rent
\nController by order dated 25.2.2 003 dismissed the same by  holding  that  the
\ntenant  has  failed to follow the procedure enumerated under Sec.8 of the Act.
\nThe appeal filed  in  RCA  No.3\/2003  was  also  dismissed  by  the  Appellate
\nAuthority on 29.8.2005.  The Appellate Authority considered the facts that the
\ntenant  already  filed  HRCOP  Nos.2\/1988  and  14\/1990  and RCOP No.3\/1997 to
\ndeposit the rent into court and held that the tenant would not be permitted to
\nfile one application after another when he could have very well deposited  the
\nrent either  in  HRCOP Nos.2\/1988 or 14\/1990.  Having failed to deposit in the<\/p>\n
above HRCOPs.,  the  Appellate  Authority  held  that  the  tenant  cannot  be
\npermitted  to  deposit now in this petition, that too, after committing wilful
\ndefault.  Challenging this order, the above revision petition has been filed.\n<\/p>\n
        35.  I have already dismissed CRP NPD  No.2315\/2005  and  the  reasons
\ngiven by me for dismissal of CRP NPD No.2315\/2005 would apply mutatis mutandis
\nto this CRP NPD No.2314\/2005 also.  I have also dismissed CRP NPD No.2313\/2005
\nthereby  confirming  the  orders  of  the eviction passed against the revision
\npetitioner by the authorities below on the ground of wilful default.  Hence, I
\nam not inclined to interfere with the concurrent findings of  the  authorities
\nbelow  in  not  permitting  the  petitioner  herein  to deposit the rent under
\nSec.8(5) of the Act.   Hence  this  CRP  NPD  No.2314\/2005  is  liable  to  be
\ndismissed.\n<\/p>\n
        36.   In  the  result,  all  these  three Civil Revision Petitions are
\ndismissed.  No costs.  C.M.P.No.20860\/2005 is also dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
sks <\/p>\n
To\n<\/p>\n
1.The Principal Sub-Judge, Tiruvannamalai.\n<\/p>\n
2.The Principal District Munsif, Tiruvannamalai.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court Bahadurmul Sowcar vs M.R.Lakshmanan on 14 June, 2006 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated: 14\/06\/2006 Coram The Hon’ble Mr.JUSTICE S.RAJESWARAN C.R.P.(NPD) No.2313 of 2005 and C.R.P.(NPD) 2314 and 2315 of 2005 1.Bahadurmul Sowcar 2.Subramani .. Petitioners in C.R.P. NPD No.2313\/05 Bahadurmul Sowcar Rep.by his Power of Attorney Agent Subramanian […]<\/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":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-193862","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nBahadurmul Sowcar vs M.R.Lakshmanan on 14 June, 2006 - 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\/bahadurmul-sowcar-vs-m-r-lakshmanan-on-14-june-2006\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Bahadurmul Sowcar vs M.R.Lakshmanan on 14 June, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bahadurmul-sowcar-vs-m-r-lakshmanan-on-14-june-2006\" \/>\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=\"2006-06-13T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-08-17T17:31:48+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=\"28 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bahadurmul-sowcar-vs-m-r-lakshmanan-on-14-june-2006#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bahadurmul-sowcar-vs-m-r-lakshmanan-on-14-june-2006\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Bahadurmul Sowcar vs M.R.Lakshmanan on 14 June, 2006\",\"datePublished\":\"2006-06-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-08-17T17:31:48+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bahadurmul-sowcar-vs-m-r-lakshmanan-on-14-june-2006\"},\"wordCount\":5516,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madras High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bahadurmul-sowcar-vs-m-r-lakshmanan-on-14-june-2006#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bahadurmul-sowcar-vs-m-r-lakshmanan-on-14-june-2006\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bahadurmul-sowcar-vs-m-r-lakshmanan-on-14-june-2006\",\"name\":\"Bahadurmul Sowcar vs M.R.Lakshmanan on 14 June, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2006-06-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-08-17T17:31:48+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bahadurmul-sowcar-vs-m-r-lakshmanan-on-14-june-2006#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bahadurmul-sowcar-vs-m-r-lakshmanan-on-14-june-2006\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bahadurmul-sowcar-vs-m-r-lakshmanan-on-14-june-2006#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Bahadurmul Sowcar vs M.R.Lakshmanan on 14 June, 2006\"}]},{\"@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":"Bahadurmul Sowcar vs M.R.Lakshmanan on 14 June, 2006 - 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\/bahadurmul-sowcar-vs-m-r-lakshmanan-on-14-june-2006","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Bahadurmul Sowcar vs M.R.Lakshmanan on 14 June, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bahadurmul-sowcar-vs-m-r-lakshmanan-on-14-june-2006","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2006-06-13T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-08-17T17:31:48+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":"28 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bahadurmul-sowcar-vs-m-r-lakshmanan-on-14-june-2006#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bahadurmul-sowcar-vs-m-r-lakshmanan-on-14-june-2006"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Bahadurmul Sowcar vs M.R.Lakshmanan on 14 June, 2006","datePublished":"2006-06-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-08-17T17:31:48+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bahadurmul-sowcar-vs-m-r-lakshmanan-on-14-june-2006"},"wordCount":5516,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madras High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bahadurmul-sowcar-vs-m-r-lakshmanan-on-14-june-2006#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bahadurmul-sowcar-vs-m-r-lakshmanan-on-14-june-2006","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bahadurmul-sowcar-vs-m-r-lakshmanan-on-14-june-2006","name":"Bahadurmul Sowcar vs M.R.Lakshmanan on 14 June, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2006-06-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-08-17T17:31:48+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bahadurmul-sowcar-vs-m-r-lakshmanan-on-14-june-2006#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bahadurmul-sowcar-vs-m-r-lakshmanan-on-14-june-2006"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bahadurmul-sowcar-vs-m-r-lakshmanan-on-14-june-2006#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Bahadurmul Sowcar vs M.R.Lakshmanan on 14 June, 2006"}]},{"@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\/193862","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=193862"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/193862\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=193862"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=193862"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=193862"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}