{"id":193890,"date":"1996-10-03T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1996-10-02T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-himachal-pradesh-university-vs-the-punjab-university-chandigarh-on-3-october-1996"},"modified":"2016-06-19T11:02:45","modified_gmt":"2016-06-19T05:32:45","slug":"the-himachal-pradesh-university-vs-the-punjab-university-chandigarh-on-3-october-1996","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-himachal-pradesh-university-vs-the-punjab-university-chandigarh-on-3-october-1996","title":{"rendered":"The Himachal Pradesh University, &#8230; vs The Punjab University Chandigarh &#8230; on 3 October, 1996"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">The Himachal Pradesh University, &#8230; vs The Punjab University Chandigarh &#8230; on 3 October, 1996<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: S Majmudar.<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: N.P. Singh, S.B. Majmudar<\/div>\n<pre>           PETITIONER:\nTHE HIMACHAL PRADESH UNIVERSITY, SHIMLA\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nTHE PUNJAB UNIVERSITY CHANDIGARH &amp; ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t03\/10\/1996\n\nBENCH:\nN.P. SINGH, S.B. MAJMUDAR\n\n\n\n\nACT:\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>\t\t      J U D G M E N T<br \/>\nS.B. Majmudar. J.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Leave  granted   in  all\tthese  three  Special  Leave<br \/>\npetitions.\n<\/p>\n<p>     By consent\t of learned advocates of parties the appeals<br \/>\nwere finally  heard and are being disposed of by this common<br \/>\njudgment.\n<\/p>\n<p>     The  contesting   parties\tin  these  appeals  are\t two<br \/>\nuniversities, namely,  Himachal Pradesh\t University,  Shimla<br \/>\nand Punjab University, Chandigarh. The dispute centers round<br \/>\nthe  ownership\t and  possession   of  immovable  properties<br \/>\nsituated at  shimla in\tthe State of Himachal Pradesh. These<br \/>\nproperties consist  of\tSt.  Bernard.  Building\t and  Dingle<br \/>\nLodge, located\tat Upper  Kaithu, Shimla.  It is the case of<br \/>\nthe appellant-university  that these  properties have vested<br \/>\nin it  by virtue  of  Section  8  of  the  Himachal  Pradesh<br \/>\nUniversity Act, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as &#8216;the Act&#8217;).<br \/>\nThe  respondent-  university  opposes  this  contention\t and<br \/>\nsubmits that  these properties\tbelonged to  the respondent-<br \/>\nuniversity and\ttheir possession by the appellant-university<br \/>\nwas  only  as  tenant.\tThe  contention\t of  the  appellant-<br \/>\nUniversity has\tstood rejected\tin the proceedings initiated<br \/>\nbefore the  Trial Court and subsequently in the hierarchy of<br \/>\nproceedings in\tfurther appeal\tand revision before the High<br \/>\nCourt. Decrees for possession have come to be passed against<br \/>\nthe appellant-university  by the  Trial Court as well as the<br \/>\nAppellate Court\t and which  have got  confirmed by  the High<br \/>\nCourt.\n<\/p>\n<p>     There separate  proceedings which\thave culminated into<br \/>\nthese  three  appeals  were  initiated\tby  the\t respondent-<br \/>\nuniversity   against\tthe   appellant-university.    First<br \/>\nproceeding was\tan application\tfor eviction  filed  by\t the<br \/>\nrespondent-university  under  Himachal\tPradesh\t Urban\tRent<br \/>\nControl Act  praying for  an order of eviction on the ground<br \/>\nthat the  appellant-university had  not paid rent in respect<br \/>\nof these  premises. It\twas also  alleged that it had sublet<br \/>\nthe premises to other persons without the written consent of<br \/>\nthe landlord,  respondent-university. Two  other suits\twere<br \/>\nalso  filed   by  the\trespondent-university\tbefore\t the<br \/>\nSubordinate  judge,   1st  Class  (I),\tShimla\tagainst\t the<br \/>\nappellant-university and  another for recovery of possession<br \/>\nof two\tsuites, namely,\t suite no.  2 and suite no. 4 in the<br \/>\nvery same St. Bernard Building together with damages for use<br \/>\nand  occupation.   In  these   two  suits   the\t respondent-<br \/>\nuniversity  contended\tthat  it   owned  the  property\t and<br \/>\nappellant was a tenant on payment of rent and it had already<br \/>\nsurrendered its\t tenancy qua these suites to the respondent.<br \/>\nThat accordingly the suites were locked and subsequently the<br \/>\nappellant-university or\t its servants  broken open the locks<br \/>\nand had\t occupied the  suites and  also caused\tdamage t the<br \/>\narticles. Punjab  University thus  prayed  for\trecovery  of<br \/>\npossession of  the suites  and also  claimed damages. In all<br \/>\nthese proceedings  common defence  was put  forward  by\t the<br \/>\nappellant-university, namely,  by virtue of Section 8 of the<br \/>\nAct these  properties had vested in the appellant-university<br \/>\nand, therefore,\t the  respondent-university  had  no  right,<br \/>\ntitle or  interest therein. This defence was rejected by the<br \/>\nTrial Court  and it  was held that respondent-university was<br \/>\nthe owner  of these  premises and  the appellant  was only a<br \/>\ntenant as  it had  defaulted in payment of rent, application<br \/>\nfor eviction  was required  to be allowed and the suits were<br \/>\nalso required to be decreed as the appellant had no right to<br \/>\nremain in  the possession  thereof.  The  appeals  preferred<br \/>\nagainst decrees\t in the suits got dismissed by the Appellate<br \/>\nCourt. Similarly  the order  passed in\teviction proceedings<br \/>\nalso got  confirmed by\tthe Appellate  Court and that is how<br \/>\nthe appellant-university  filed two  second appeals  against<br \/>\ndecrees passed\tin title  suits of the respondent-university<br \/>\nand also moved a revision application against the decree for<br \/>\npossession as  granted in  eviction proceedings\t by the Rent<br \/>\nController. As\tall these  three proceedings  raised  common<br \/>\ncontention between  the parties they were heard together and<br \/>\nwere disposed  of by  the common judgment of the High Court.<br \/>\nThe second  appeal as  well as\trevision application  of the<br \/>\nappellant-university were  dismissed and  that\tis  how\t the<br \/>\nappellant-university   is   before   us\t  in   the   present<br \/>\nproceedings.\n<\/p>\n<p>     The  short\t  question  which   was\t  placed   for\t our<br \/>\nconsideration by  the learned  counsel\tfor  the  appellant-<br \/>\nuniversity was\twhether the  appellant-university had become<br \/>\nthe owner  of the  suit properties by virtue of Section 8 of<br \/>\nthe Act.  It was vehemently submitted by the learned counsel<br \/>\nfor the\t appellant-university that  in view  of the  express<br \/>\nlanguage of  the said Section all the assets and liabilities<br \/>\nof Punjab  University Regional\tCentre\tfor  post  Graduated<br \/>\nStudies and Punjab University Evening College, Shimla vested<br \/>\nin the appellant-university. That these two centres were run<br \/>\nby the\trespondent-university prior  to the  application  of<br \/>\nSection 8  of the  Act. That  earlier Shimla was also a part<br \/>\nand parcel  of Punjab  State and  by virtue  of\t the  Punjab<br \/>\nReorganisation Act,  1966 (hereinafter\treferred to  as\t &#8216;as<br \/>\nReorganisation Act&#8217;)  part of  the territories of the Punjab<br \/>\nState got  bifurcated  and  a  separate\t State\tof  Himachal<br \/>\nPradesh\t was  ultimately  constituted.\tThat  by  virtue  of<br \/>\nSection\t 72   of  the\tReorganisation\tAct  the  appellant-<br \/>\nuniversity became  a successor\tof the Punjab University qua<br \/>\nits  earlier  functioning  and\toperation  at  Shimla.\tThat<br \/>\nentitled  the\tappellant  to  step  in\t the  shoes  of\t the<br \/>\nrespondent-university\tqua    these   premises\t   and\t the<br \/>\ninstitutions which were earlier belonging to the respondent-<br \/>\nuniversity and\twhich were functioning at Shimla fell within<br \/>\nthe  local   jurisdiction  of\tthe  appellant,\t  successor-<br \/>\nuniversity. This  was the legal effect of Section 72(1) read<br \/>\nwith Section  72(3) of\tthe Reorganisation  Act. It was next<br \/>\nsubmitted that\tonce that happened by virtue of Section 8 of<br \/>\nthe Act\t all  the  assets  and\tliabilities  of\t the  Punjab<br \/>\nUniversity Regional  Centre for\t Post Graduate\tStudies\t and<br \/>\nPunjab University  Evening College,  Shimla got\t statutorily<br \/>\nvested\tin   the  appellant-university.\t  That\t these\t two<br \/>\ninstitutions of\t the Punjab University were being run at the<br \/>\nsuit   premises\t   and,\t  therefore,   the   suit   premises<br \/>\nautomatically got  vested in  the appellant-university. That<br \/>\ndue to\tsome misconception about the correct legal position,<br \/>\nthe  Vice   Chancellor\tof   the  appellant-university\t had<br \/>\nacknowledged that  the appellant-university  had  no  right,<br \/>\ntitle or  interest in  the  suit  premises  and\t was  to  be<br \/>\npermitted to  continue as tenant thereof but having realised<br \/>\nthe legal  position payment  of rent  for occupation  of the<br \/>\npremises was  suspended by the appellant-university and that<br \/>\nthere could  not be  any estoppel  about the  correct  legal<br \/>\nposition  as   envisaged  by  Section  8  of  the  Act\tand,<br \/>\ntherefore, the\tHigh Court  was in  error in taking the view<br \/>\nthat Section  8 did  not apply\tto the\tfacts of the present<br \/>\ncase and that the suit premises did not vest in ownership of<br \/>\nthe appellant-university.\n<\/p>\n<p>     On the  other hand\t learned counsel for the respondent-<br \/>\nuniversity submitted  that since  last number  of years\t the<br \/>\nappellant-university had  treated respondent as the owner of<br \/>\nthe premises  and had  acknowledge that they were tenants of<br \/>\nthe premises.  That the\t subsequent somersault\ttaken by the<br \/>\nappellant-university  was   not\t legally  sustainable.\tThat<br \/>\nSection 8  of the  Act could  not apply\t to the facts of the<br \/>\ncase as\t correctly held\t by the\t High Court  for the  simple<br \/>\nreason that  the appellant had not established by any cogent<br \/>\nevidence that the concerned Centre for post Graduate Studies<br \/>\nand the\t Evening College  at Shimla  belonged to  the Punjab<br \/>\nUniversity. That  on the  contrary the\tfinding of the Trial<br \/>\nCourt was  that this  Centre and College were tenants of the<br \/>\nbuilding belonging  to the  Punjab University  and hence the<br \/>\nbuilding could\tnot  vest  in  the  appellant-university  by<br \/>\nvirtue of  section  8.\tIt  was\t also  submitted  that\teven<br \/>\nassuming that the Centre and the College were departments or<br \/>\nlimbs of  the Punjab  University there\twas nothing  on\t the<br \/>\nrecord to  show that  the premises in question in which this<br \/>\nCentre and  College were  located belonged to either of them<br \/>\nor had\tbecome the  assets of  either of  them. Even on that<br \/>\nground, therefore,  Section 8  would be\t out of picture. The<br \/>\nappellant, therefore,  continued to be tenant in arrears and<br \/>\nwas  rightly  ordered  to  be  evicted\tfrom  the  premises.<br \/>\nSimilarly the  suits in\t favour of  the respondent were also<br \/>\ndecreed\t as   the  appellant  had  no  right  to  remain  in<br \/>\npossession of  these two suites which were subject-matter of<br \/>\nthe Civil Suits.\n<\/p>\n<p>     In\t order\tto  resolve  this  controversy\tbetween\t two<br \/>\ncontesting universities\t it is\tnecessary to  keep  in\tview<br \/>\ncertain introductory  facts. Before  1966 Shimla was part of<br \/>\nPunjab State  and Punjab  University was the only university<br \/>\nwhich was  functioning both at chandigarh and also at shimla<br \/>\nwhich was  within  its\tterritorial  jurisdiction.  It\talso<br \/>\nappears\t that  the  respondent-university  was\trunning\t two<br \/>\ncentres at  Shimla, one being the Punjab University Regional<br \/>\nCentre for  post Graduate  Studies and\tanother being Punjab<br \/>\nUniversity Evening College, Both these institutions were run<br \/>\nby the\trespondent-university at  St. Bernard  Building\t and<br \/>\nDingle Lodge  situated at Shimla. These premises were gifted<br \/>\nto the respondent-university by a registered Gift Deed dated<br \/>\n7th December  1959 marked  as Ex,  PW1\/A. The said Gift Deed<br \/>\nwas made  by Pt. Thakur Datt Sharma of Dharmarth Trust, Thus<br \/>\nfrom 7th  December 1959\t the suit  premises  came  into\t the<br \/>\nownership of  respondent-university as\ta donee and in those<br \/>\npremises  the\trespondent   was   running   the   aforesaid<br \/>\ninstitutions at\t Shimla. In  1966 the bigger State of Punjab<br \/>\ncame to\t be bifurcated\tand on\taccount of reorganisation of<br \/>\nthe State  two separate\t State of Punjab and Haryana and New<br \/>\nUnion  Territories  of\tChandigarh  and\t some  part  of\t the<br \/>\nexisting Himachal  Pradesh State  territory  then  known  as<br \/>\nunion Territory\t of Himachal  Pradesh came to be formed. The<br \/>\nlatter territory  subsequently became  the State of Himachal<br \/>\nPradesh. Section  72 of\t the  Reorganisation  Act  on  which<br \/>\nstrong reliance\t is placed  by the  learned counsel  for the<br \/>\nappellant along\t with its  sub-sections (1) and (3) reads as<br \/>\nUnder :\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>     &#8220;72.  General   provisions\t as   to<br \/>\n     statutory cooperations, (1) Save as<br \/>\n     otherwise expressly provided by the<br \/>\n     foregoing provisions  of this part,<br \/>\n     where    any     body     corporate<br \/>\n     constituted  under\t a  Central  Act<br \/>\n     State Act or provincial Act for the<br \/>\n     existing State  of\t Punjab\t or  any<br \/>\n     part thereof  serves the  needs  of<br \/>\n     the  successor  State  or\thas,  by<br \/>\n     virtue of the provisions of part II<br \/>\n     become    an    inter-State    body<br \/>\n     corporate, then, the body corporate<br \/>\n     shall, on\tand from  the  appointed<br \/>\n     day,  continue   to  function   and<br \/>\n     operate in\t those areas  in respect<br \/>\n     of which  it  was\tfunctioning  and<br \/>\n     operating immediately  before  that<br \/>\n     day, subject  to such directions as<br \/>\n     may from  time to time be issued by<br \/>\n     the Central Government, until other<br \/>\n     provision is made by law in respect<br \/>\n     of the said body corporate.<br \/>\n     (2)&#8230;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>     (3) For  the removal of doubt it is<br \/>\n     hereby declared that the provisions<br \/>\n     of this section shall apply also to<br \/>\n     the Punjab\t University  constituted<br \/>\n     under  the\t Punjab\t University  Act<br \/>\n     1947, (East  Punjab Act  7 of 1947)<br \/>\n     the Punjab\t Agricultural University<br \/>\n     constituted   under    the\t  Punjab<br \/>\n     Agricultural University  Act, 1961,<br \/>\n     (Punjab Act  32 of\t 1961)\tand  the<br \/>\n     Board   constituted    under    the<br \/>\n     provisions of  part III of the Sikh<br \/>\n     Gurdwaras Act,  1925 (Punjab  Act 8<br \/>\n     of 1925).&#8221;<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>     In view  of the  aforesaid statutory  provisions of the<br \/>\nReorganisation Act  it becomes\tclear that from 1966 onwards<br \/>\nthe  erstwhile\t Punjab\t University  was  succeeded  by\t the<br \/>\nappellant-university  insofar\tas   its   functioning\t and<br \/>\noperation at  Shimla were  concerned. Upto  this stage there<br \/>\ncannot be  any serious\tdispute between the parties. However<br \/>\nthe real  dispute between  the\tparties\t centers  round\t the<br \/>\noperation of Section 8 of the Act which reads as under :\n<\/p>\n<p>     &#8220;8.   Transfer    of   assets   and<br \/>\n     liabilities  and  of  employees  of<br \/>\n     certain   institutions    to    the<br \/>\n     University. On  the commencement of<br \/>\n     this   Act,    the\t   assets    and<br \/>\n     liabilities of  Punjab  University-\n<\/p>\n<p>     Regional Centre  for post\tGraduate<br \/>\n     Studies,  Shimla\tand  the  Punjab<br \/>\n     University Evening College, Shimla,<br \/>\n     shall  stand   transferred\t to  and<br \/>\n     shall vest\t in the\t University,  in<br \/>\n     accordance\t with\tthe  terms   and<br \/>\n     conditions\t  mutually   agreed   to<br \/>\n     between  the   University\tand  the<br \/>\n     Punjab University,\t Chandigarh. All<br \/>\n     officers  and  other  employees  of<br \/>\n     these institutions\t holding  office<br \/>\n     as\t such\timmediately  before  the<br \/>\n     commencement of this Act, shall, on<br \/>\n     such   commencement    become   the<br \/>\n     officers and other employees of the<br \/>\n     University;\n<\/p>\n<p>     provided that :-\n<\/p>\n<p>     (1) such  officers and employees of<br \/>\n     the  above-mentioned   institutions<br \/>\n     shall be  allowed\tto  exercise  an<br \/>\n     option whether  or\t not  they  wish<br \/>\n     their services  to be taken over by<br \/>\n     the University;\n<\/p>\n<p>     (2) the existing rights and service<br \/>\n     conditions of  such  employees  who<br \/>\n     opt for  service in  the University<br \/>\n     shall be protected;\n<\/p>\n<p>     (3) any  service  rendered\t by  any<br \/>\n     such  officer   or\t other\temployee<br \/>\n     before such transfer of his service<br \/>\n     to the  University shall  be deemed<br \/>\n     to\t  be\tservice\t  rendered    in<br \/>\n     connection with  the administration<br \/>\n     of the University, on the condition<br \/>\n     that  their   leave,  pension   and<br \/>\n     provident\t fund\t and\tgratuity<br \/>\n     contribution  in\trespect\t of  the<br \/>\n     service rendered  by  them\t to  the<br \/>\n     Punjab   University,    Chandigarh,<br \/>\n     shall   be\t   reimbursed\tto   the<br \/>\n     University\t   by\t  the\t  Punjab<br \/>\n     University, Chandigarh;\n<\/p>\n<p>     Provided further  that in the event<br \/>\n     of any dispute or difficulty in the<br \/>\n     matter  of\t implementation\t of  the<br \/>\n     provisions\t of   this  section  the<br \/>\n     matter shall  be  referred\t to  the<br \/>\n     Central Government,  whose decision<br \/>\n     shall be final.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>     A mere  look at  the aforesaid provision shows that out<br \/>\nof  different  institutions  belonging\tto  the\t respondent-<br \/>\nuniversity which  might be  functioning at  Shimla or in any<br \/>\nother  part   of  Himachal  Pradesh  which  came  under\t the<br \/>\noperational jurisdiction  of appellant-university  by virtue<br \/>\nof Reorganisation  Act, the  Legislature  of  the  State  of<br \/>\nHimachal  Pradesh   in\tits   wisdom   selected\t  two\tsuch<br \/>\ninstitutions which were earlier run by the Punjab University<br \/>\nat Shimla,  namely, Punjab  University Regional\t Centre\t for<br \/>\npost Graduate Studies and Punjab University Evening College,<br \/>\nShimla for the purpose of vesting its assets and liabilities<br \/>\nin the\tsuccessor-university,  namely,\tthe  appellant,\t For<br \/>\napplicability of  section 8  of the Act to the suit premises<br \/>\ntwo conditions\tare required  to be  satisfied, (i) that the<br \/>\nconcerned  two\t institutions  at  Shimla  belonged  to\t the<br \/>\nerstwhile Punjab  University; and  (ii) that  the assets and<br \/>\nliabilities of\tthese  two  institutions  included,  amongst<br \/>\nothers, the  suit premises, namely, St. Bernard Building and<br \/>\nDingle Lodge  wherein they  were run so that they could also<br \/>\nvest in\t the appellant-university  as successor-in-title  to<br \/>\nthe respondent-university,  So\tfar  as\t the  aforesaid\t two<br \/>\nconditions for\tapplicability of  Section 8 are concerned it<br \/>\nmay be\tnoted that  the learned\t Appellate Judge came to the<br \/>\nfollowing finding:\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>     &#8220;While deciding   issue  No. 1, the<br \/>\n     learned Rent  Controller  had  held<br \/>\n     that  the\trespondent  is\tnot  the<br \/>\n     owner of  premises in  question but<br \/>\n     is only  a tenant\tthereof and  the<br \/>\n     relationship of landlord and tenant<br \/>\n     exists between  the  parties.  This<br \/>\n     finding objections on behalf of the<br \/>\n     respondent despite\t opportunity nor<br \/>\n     has been  assailed at  the time  of<br \/>\n     arguments.\t I   do\t not   find  any<br \/>\n     infirmity in  the findings returned<br \/>\n     by\t the  Rent  Controller\ton  this<br \/>\n     issue and\taccordingly confirm  the<br \/>\n     same.&#8221;<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>     This finding  of the appellate Court was not challenged<br \/>\nby the\tappellant-university in\t appeal as  clearly noted by<br \/>\nthe Appellate  Court in\t paragraph eleven  of its  judgment.<br \/>\nHowever as the said contention which went to the root of the<br \/>\nmatter was  allowed to be urged by the High Court in further<br \/>\nappeals and  revision we  have considered this contention on<br \/>\nits own\t merits. While\tconsidering this contention, we must<br \/>\nobserve that the finding reached by the Trial Court that the<br \/>\ninstitutions, namely,  Centre for  post Graduate Studies and<br \/>\nthe Evening  College, Shimla  were the tenants of the Punjab<br \/>\nUniversity, cannot  be sustained in the light of the express<br \/>\nlanguage  of   Section\t8  of  the  Act.  Section  8  itself<br \/>\ncontemplates that  these  institutions\tbelonged  to  Punjab<br \/>\nUniversity otherwise  there would  have been no occasion for<br \/>\nthe Legislature to lay down that the terms and conditions of<br \/>\nvesting of  these institutions\tin the\tappellant-university<br \/>\nwould be mutually agreed to between the appellant-university<br \/>\non the\tone hand  and Punjab  university, Chandigarh  on the<br \/>\nother.\tImplicit   in  this   provision\t is   the  statutory<br \/>\nassumption that\t these institutions which were run at Shimla<br \/>\nbelonged to  the respondent-university,\t That  also  contra-<br \/>\nindicates the  contention of  the respondent-university that<br \/>\nit was\tthe landlord  of the  premises and the centres which<br \/>\nwere run therein were its tenants, It has to be kept in view<br \/>\nthat it\t is nobody&#8217;s  case that\t these two  centres had\t any<br \/>\nlegal entity  or were  corporation soles.  It appeared\tthey<br \/>\nwere just  the limbs  of respondent-university and were part<br \/>\nand parcel  of its  own establishment  and organisation.  We<br \/>\nmust, therefore,  hold disagreeing  with the  Trial Court as<br \/>\nwell as\t the High  Court that the Punjab University Regional<br \/>\nCentre for  post  Graduate  Studies  and  Punjab  University<br \/>\nEvening College\t at Shimla  which were being run at the suit<br \/>\npremises belonged  to respondent-Punjab\t University and were<br \/>\nowned by  it.  The  first  condition  for  applicability  of<br \/>\nSection 8,  therefore, stands  satisfied. However  the\treal<br \/>\ndifficulty  centers   round  applicability   of\t the  second<br \/>\ncondition which\t must  also  be\t cumulatively  found  to  be<br \/>\nsatisfied before  the sweep  of Section 8 can be effectively<br \/>\nutilised  by   the  appellant-university   for\tproving\t its<br \/>\nownership over\tthe suit  premises. It\tmust, therefore,  be<br \/>\nshown  by   the\t appellant-university\tthat  not  only\t the<br \/>\naforesaid  two\t institutions  at  Shimla  belonged  to\t the<br \/>\nrespondent-university but  the suit  premises wherein  these<br \/>\ninstitutions were functioning and located also formed a part<br \/>\nand parcel of the assets of the said two institutions. It is<br \/>\nobvious that unless they belonged to these institutions they<br \/>\nwould not get vested by the statutory operation of Section 8<br \/>\nin  the\t  appellant-university.\t Learned   counsel  for\t the<br \/>\nappellant despite  his best  efforts could not point out any<br \/>\nrelevant  evidence  for\t showing  that\tthe  suit  premises,<br \/>\nnamely, the  St. Bernard Building and the Dingle Lodge which<br \/>\nadmittedly belonged  to the respondent-university as per the<br \/>\nGift Deed of 1959 had at any subsequent time got handed over<br \/>\nin the\townership of  the aforesaid  two institutions run by<br \/>\nthe respondent-university  at Shimla.  In  other  words\t the<br \/>\nownership of  these suit  premises continued  to remain with<br \/>\nthe respondent-university  wherein  these  two\tinstitutions<br \/>\nwere  permitted\t to  be\t run  by  the  respondent-university<br \/>\npresumably  as\tits  licensees.\t All  the  assets  of  these<br \/>\ninstitutions comprising\t of movable  properties and  cash as<br \/>\nwell as\t other furnitures  and\tfixtures  located  at  these<br \/>\npremises might\thave got  vested in the appellant-university<br \/>\nalong with  the liabilities  of these institutions by virtue<br \/>\nof Section  8 but  the further\tquestion  whether  the\tvery<br \/>\nbuilding in  which these  two institutions  were functioning<br \/>\nhad also  got  transferred  in\townership  from\t the  Punjab<br \/>\nUniversity to  these two  institutions and  had thus  become<br \/>\ntheir assets was required to be answered in the light of the<br \/>\navailable  evidence  on\t record.  Learned  counsel  for\t the<br \/>\nappellant was  not able\t to enlighten  us on this aspect. He<br \/>\ncould not  point any  evidence to  show as to when if at all<br \/>\nrespondent-university divested\titself of  its ownership  of<br \/>\nthese premises\tand vested  it in these tow institutions. On<br \/>\nthe contrary  the evidence  on\trecord\tsuggested  that\t the<br \/>\nappellant-university consistently  took the  view that\teven<br \/>\nthough the  institution with  assets and  liabilities  might<br \/>\nhave vested in the appellant-university by virtue of Section<br \/>\n8 the  ownership of the building had not got vested in these<br \/>\ninstitutions which  had no  independent legal existence. And<br \/>\nthat is how years back the Vice Chancellor of the appellant-<br \/>\nuniversity by  letter Ex,  P-8 had requested the respondent-<br \/>\nuniversity to  permit the  appellant-university to  continue<br \/>\nthese institutions  in the  suit premises  for some time and<br \/>\nhad agreed  to pay  rent and  that is  how by  Ex. P-11\t the<br \/>\nrespondent-university having  accepted this  request of\t the<br \/>\nvice chancellor of the appellant-university had decided that<br \/>\nthe suit  premises may\tbe placed  at the  disposal  of\t the<br \/>\nappellant-university for  a period  of two years on the same<br \/>\nterms on  which they  were made available to Centre for post<br \/>\nGraduate  Studies   and\t the   Evening\tCollege.   It  must,<br \/>\ntherefore, be  held that  the appellant-university failed to<br \/>\nestablish the  second condition\t for  the  applicability  of<br \/>\nSection 8  of the  Act, namely,\t that the suit premises were<br \/>\nbelonging to  these two\t institutions and  were forming part<br \/>\nand parcel  of\ttheir  assets  at  Shimla.  It\tis  easy  to<br \/>\nvisualise  that\t respondent-university\tcould  run  its\t own<br \/>\ninstitutions  which   may  also\t  be  treated\tas  its\t own<br \/>\ndepartments at\tShimla either in a rented premises or in its<br \/>\nown premises  by permitting  the concerned  institutions  to<br \/>\noccupy them  on\t their\tbehalf,\t but  for  applicability  of<br \/>\nSection 8 and for statutory vesting of these premises in the<br \/>\nappellant-university it\t must be shown that by any overt act<br \/>\non  the\t  part\tof   the  respondent-university\t  which\t was<br \/>\nadmittedly the\towner of the premises it had parted with its<br \/>\nownership in  favour of\t these institutions  or had  treated<br \/>\nthem as\t the full  owners thereof  so that  the institutions<br \/>\ncould be said to be having the premises themselves as a part<br \/>\nand parcel  of their own assets. Till that stage was reached<br \/>\nstatutory  vesting  of\tthese  premises\t in  the  appellant-<br \/>\nuniversity by  virtue of  Section 8 could not be reached. On<br \/>\nthis aspect,  therefore, in  the  absence  of  any  relevant<br \/>\nevidence on  record no finding could be reached in favour of<br \/>\nthe appellant.\tLearned advocate for the appellant submitted<br \/>\nthat he has got evidence by way of public documents to point<br \/>\nout that  the respondent-university  used to sanction grants<br \/>\nfor running these institutions at Shimla. Even assuming that<br \/>\nto be  so all  that could be held in favour of the appellant<br \/>\nis that\t these\tinstitutions  belonged\tto  the\t respondent-<br \/>\nuniversity. But\t we have  shown earlier that by itself would<br \/>\nnot be\tsufficient for\tattracting   Section 8\tof the\tAct.<br \/>\nFurther requirement  of Section\t 8 was\tto the\teffect\tthat<br \/>\nthese suit  premises wherein these institutions were located<br \/>\nmust have  become part\tand parcel  of the  assets of  these<br \/>\ninstitutions. As that second and more important condition is<br \/>\nfound to  be lacking  in the  present  case  the  appellant-<br \/>\nuniversity cannot  get the  benefit of\tstatutory vesting of<br \/>\nthese premises\tin its\tfavour by virtue of Section 8 of the<br \/>\nAct. The  sole basis of the defence of the appellant against<br \/>\nthe legal  actions taken  out  by  respondent-university  is<br \/>\nfound to  be unsustainable.  Consequently no  relief can  be<br \/>\ngiven to  the appellant-university  on that ground. There is<br \/>\nno dispute  that the  appellant-university had not paid rent<br \/>\nto the\trespondent  for\t the  concerned\t period\t and  was  a<br \/>\ndefaulter. Hence  on merits  also it  could not be said that<br \/>\nthe Trial  Court as well as the appellate Court and the High<br \/>\nCourt had committed any error in decreeing the suits as well<br \/>\nas eviction  proceedings initiated by the respondent against<br \/>\nthe appellant.\n<\/p>\n<p>     In the result these appeals fail and are dismissed.<br \/>\nThere shall be no order as to costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India The Himachal Pradesh University, &#8230; vs The Punjab University Chandigarh &#8230; on 3 October, 1996 Author: S Majmudar. Bench: N.P. Singh, S.B. Majmudar PETITIONER: THE HIMACHAL PRADESH UNIVERSITY, SHIMLA Vs. RESPONDENT: THE PUNJAB UNIVERSITY CHANDIGARH &amp; ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 03\/10\/1996 BENCH: N.P. SINGH, S.B. MAJMUDAR ACT: HEADNOTE: JUDGMENT: J U [&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-193890","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>The Himachal Pradesh University, ... vs The Punjab University Chandigarh ... on 3 October, 1996 - 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\/the-himachal-pradesh-university-vs-the-punjab-university-chandigarh-on-3-october-1996\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"The Himachal Pradesh University, ... vs The Punjab University Chandigarh ... on 3 October, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-himachal-pradesh-university-vs-the-punjab-university-chandigarh-on-3-october-1996\" \/>\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=\"1996-10-02T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-06-19T05:32:45+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=\"19 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-himachal-pradesh-university-vs-the-punjab-university-chandigarh-on-3-october-1996#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-himachal-pradesh-university-vs-the-punjab-university-chandigarh-on-3-october-1996\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"The Himachal Pradesh University, &#8230; vs The Punjab University Chandigarh &#8230; on 3 October, 1996\",\"datePublished\":\"1996-10-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-06-19T05:32:45+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-himachal-pradesh-university-vs-the-punjab-university-chandigarh-on-3-october-1996\"},\"wordCount\":3691,\"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\\\/the-himachal-pradesh-university-vs-the-punjab-university-chandigarh-on-3-october-1996#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-himachal-pradesh-university-vs-the-punjab-university-chandigarh-on-3-october-1996\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-himachal-pradesh-university-vs-the-punjab-university-chandigarh-on-3-october-1996\",\"name\":\"The Himachal Pradesh University, ... vs The Punjab University Chandigarh ... on 3 October, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1996-10-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-06-19T05:32:45+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-himachal-pradesh-university-vs-the-punjab-university-chandigarh-on-3-october-1996#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-himachal-pradesh-university-vs-the-punjab-university-chandigarh-on-3-october-1996\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-himachal-pradesh-university-vs-the-punjab-university-chandigarh-on-3-october-1996#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"The Himachal Pradesh University, &#8230; vs The Punjab University Chandigarh &#8230; on 3 October, 1996\"}]},{\"@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":"The Himachal Pradesh University, ... vs The Punjab University Chandigarh ... on 3 October, 1996 - 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\/the-himachal-pradesh-university-vs-the-punjab-university-chandigarh-on-3-october-1996","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The Himachal Pradesh University, ... vs The Punjab University Chandigarh ... on 3 October, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-himachal-pradesh-university-vs-the-punjab-university-chandigarh-on-3-october-1996","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1996-10-02T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-06-19T05:32:45+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":"19 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-himachal-pradesh-university-vs-the-punjab-university-chandigarh-on-3-october-1996#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-himachal-pradesh-university-vs-the-punjab-university-chandigarh-on-3-october-1996"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"The Himachal Pradesh University, &#8230; vs The Punjab University Chandigarh &#8230; on 3 October, 1996","datePublished":"1996-10-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-06-19T05:32:45+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-himachal-pradesh-university-vs-the-punjab-university-chandigarh-on-3-october-1996"},"wordCount":3691,"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\/the-himachal-pradesh-university-vs-the-punjab-university-chandigarh-on-3-october-1996#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-himachal-pradesh-university-vs-the-punjab-university-chandigarh-on-3-october-1996","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-himachal-pradesh-university-vs-the-punjab-university-chandigarh-on-3-october-1996","name":"The Himachal Pradesh University, ... vs The Punjab University Chandigarh ... on 3 October, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1996-10-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-06-19T05:32:45+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-himachal-pradesh-university-vs-the-punjab-university-chandigarh-on-3-october-1996#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-himachal-pradesh-university-vs-the-punjab-university-chandigarh-on-3-october-1996"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-himachal-pradesh-university-vs-the-punjab-university-chandigarh-on-3-october-1996#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"The Himachal Pradesh University, &#8230; vs The Punjab University Chandigarh &#8230; on 3 October, 1996"}]},{"@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\/193890","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=193890"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/193890\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=193890"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=193890"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=193890"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}