{"id":197527,"date":"2009-11-10T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-11-09T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nelson-christopher-vs-pritam-singh-on-10-november-2009"},"modified":"2017-10-08T08:54:17","modified_gmt":"2017-10-08T03:24:17","slug":"nelson-christopher-vs-pritam-singh-on-10-november-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nelson-christopher-vs-pritam-singh-on-10-november-2009","title":{"rendered":"Nelson Christopher vs Pritam Singh on 10 November, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court<\/div>\n
Nelson Christopher vs Pritam Singh on 10 November, 2009<\/div>\n
Civil Revision No. 1397 of 2007                               {1}\n\n      In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh\n\n\n                               Civil Revision No. 1397 of 2007\n                               Date of Decision:November 10, 2009\n\nNelson Christopher\n\n\n\n                                           ---Petitioner\n\n\n                  versus\n\n\nPritam Singh\n\n\n                                           ---Respondent\n\n\nCoram:      HONBLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH\n\n                ***\n\nPresent:    Mr. Kanwaljit Singh, Senior Advocate,\n            with Ms. Prachi Sharma, Advocate\n            for the petitioner\n\n            Mr.Sushil Kumar Saini, Advocate,\n            for the respondent.\n\n                  ***\n\nGURDEV SINGH, J. (Oral)\n<\/pre>\n
            Petitioner-tenant has preferred this revision petition against<\/p>\n
orders dated 17.2.2007 passed by Shri Tarsem Mangla, Rent Controller,<\/p>\n
Ludhiana, vide which he dismissed the application filed by the petitioner<\/p>\n
under Section 18-A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949<\/p>\n
(hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) seeking leave to contest the petition<\/p>\n
filed by the respondent-landlord under Section 13-B of the Act for his<\/p>\n
ejectment from the premises in dispute and ordered his ejectment from that<\/p>\n
premises after refusing that application, on the ground that he is Non-\n<\/p>\n
 Civil Revision No. 1397 of 2007                               {2}<\/p>\n
resident Indian and his ownership regarding the demised premises matured<\/p>\n
more than five years back and he wanted to occupy the same for personal<\/p>\n
use and occupation.\n<\/p>\n
            The facts are that the respondent-landlord filed an application<\/p>\n
under Section 13-B of the Act for the ejectment of the petitioner-tenant on<\/p>\n
the ground that he is Non-resident Indian as defined under Section 2 (dd) of<\/p>\n
the Act.   The petitioner is tenant   under him though the rent is being<\/p>\n
collected on his behalf by his wife. He acquired ownership of this premises<\/p>\n
more than five years back and bona fide requires the same for his personal<\/p>\n
use and occupation. After service, the petitioner put in appearance before<\/p>\n
the learned Rent Controller and filed an application for leave to contest the<\/p>\n
ejectment application on various grounds. According to him the relation of<\/p>\n
landlord and tenant does not exist between him and the respondent and only<\/p>\n
Hardeep Kaur is his landlord\/landlady. The respondent has suppressed the<\/p>\n
material fact regarding that relationship. The ejectment application is for<\/p>\n
partial ejectment and the same is not maintainable on that ground itself. He<\/p>\n
is not a Non-resident Indian and does not require the demised premises bone<\/p>\n
fide for his personal necessity. He owns      and possesses another house<\/p>\n
bearing No. 317, situated      in Bharat Nagar Chowk, Ludhiana. That<\/p>\n
application for leave to contest was contested by the respondent. In his<\/p>\n
reply, he denied all the contentions raised by the petitioner. He reiterated<\/p>\n
his averments as made in the ejectment application.       The learned Rent<\/p>\n
Controller did not accept the contentions raised by the petitioner and<\/p>\n
resultantly dismissed his application and passed the ejectment order in<\/p>\n
favour of the respondent.\n<\/p>\n
            I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have carefully
\n Civil Revision No. 1397 of 2007                                {3}<\/p>\n
gone through the case file.\n<\/p>\n
              It was submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that<\/p>\n
learned Rent Controller failed to appreciate the fact that the respondent<\/p>\n
owns an possesses another house in the same urban area and as such cannot<\/p>\n
be said to be in bona fide need of the demised premises for his personal use<\/p>\n
and occupation. The petitioner in his affidavit specifically pleaded that the<\/p>\n
respondent and his wife own and possess House No. 317, situated in Bharat<\/p>\n
Nagar Chowk, Ludhiana and the respondent was not able to controvert that<\/p>\n
contention.    The learned Rent Controller in his order incorporated the<\/p>\n
statement of the Advocate for the petitioner that he was not the owner and<\/p>\n
in possession of that house. That statement could not have been made the<\/p>\n
basis for concluding that no such house is owned and possessed by the<\/p>\n
respondent. From the affidavit of the petitioner it becomes clear that the<\/p>\n
respondent is not entitled to get the demised premises vacated on the ground<\/p>\n
of personal necessity. In these circumstances, leave to contest should have<\/p>\n
been granted to the petitioner and the ejectment application should have<\/p>\n
been decided on merits.       In support of   his contentions he has placed<\/p>\n
reliance on Inderjeet Kaur v. Nirpal Singh<\/a> 2001(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 33,<\/p>\n
M.R.F. Limited and another v. S. Major Singh Purewal 2009(3)RCR<\/p>\n
(Civil) 196 and Baldev Singh Bajwa v. Monish Saini,<\/a> 2005(2) RCR 470.<\/p>\n
He prayed that the revision be accepted and the application filed by the<\/p>\n
petitioner for leave to contest the original ejectment application be allowed.<\/p>\n
The ejectment order be set aside and the ejectment application be decided<\/p>\n
on merits.\n<\/p>\n
              On the other hand, it was submitted by the learned counsel for<\/p>\n
the respondent that all the     contentions raised by the petitioner in his
\n Civil Revision No. 1397 of 2007                                 {4}<\/p>\n
application\/affidavit for leave to contest were duly considered by the<\/p>\n
learned rent Controller and he negatived all those contentions. The<\/p>\n
respondent was able to prove that he required the building for his own use.<\/p>\n
Therefore, it cannot be said that the order passed by the learned Rent<\/p>\n
Controller suffers from any such illegality. In support, he has placed<\/p>\n
reliance on Prem Kumar Patel v. Inderjit Singh Grewal<\/a> (2002-3) Punjab<\/p>\n
Law Reporter 829. He prayed for dismissal of the revision petition.<\/p>\n
            According to Section 18-B(5) of the Act, which contains the<\/p>\n
procedure for dealing with the application filed under Section 13-B of the<\/p>\n
Act, the Controller may give to the tenant leave to contest the application if<\/p>\n
the affidavit filed by the tenant discloses such facts as would dis-entitle the<\/p>\n
Non-resident Indian landlord from obtaining an order for the recovery of<\/p>\n
possession of the residential building under Section 13-B of the Act.<\/p>\n
Therefore, in order to succeed in the application for leave to contest, the<\/p>\n
petitioner was required to prove that the respondent was not entitled to an<\/p>\n
order for the recovery of possession of the demised premises. As per sub<\/p>\n
Section 9 of that Section, the procedure for the disposal, after such leave is<\/p>\n
granted, is the same as for the disposal of the application by the Controller.<\/p>\n
Learned Rent Controller was to reach the conclusion, on the basis of the<\/p>\n
pleadings and affidavits of the parties, that the respondent bona fide<\/p>\n
requires the demised premises for his use and occupation and that he is not<\/p>\n
in possession of any such residential building in the urban area concerned<\/p>\n
and has not vacated any such building without sufficient cause since the<\/p>\n
commencement of the Act. No doubt, he recorded a finding to that effect.<\/p>\n
The question to be decided for the decision of the present revision is<\/p>\n
whether that finding is perverse and has been recorded without sufficient
\n Civil Revision No. 1397 of 2007                                {5}<\/p>\n
material on the record.\n<\/p>\n
            It was held by the Apex Court in the case of Baldev Singh<\/p>\n
Bajwa’s case (supra) that ” in the proceedings taken up under Section 13-<\/p>\n
B by the Non-resident Indian in the ejectment of the tenant, the Court shall<\/p>\n
presume that landlord’s need pleaded in the petition is genuine and bona<\/p>\n
fide. But this would not dis-entitle the tenant from proving that in fact and<\/p>\n
in law the requirement of the landlord is not genuine. A heavy burden<\/p>\n
would lie on the tenant and will be called upon to give all the necessary<\/p>\n
facts and particulars supported by documentary evidence, if available, to<\/p>\n
support his plea in the affidavit itself so that the Controller will be in a<\/p>\n
position to adjudicate and decide the question of genuine or bona fide<\/p>\n
requirement of the landlord. A mere assertion on the part of the tenant<\/p>\n
would not be sufficient to rebut the strong presumption in the landlord’s<\/p>\n
favour that his requirement of occupation of the premises is real and<\/p>\n
genuine.”\n<\/p>\n
            It has been held by the this Court in M.R.F. Limited’s case<\/p>\n
(supra) as under:-\n<\/p>\n
            ” In this context, the need of the landlord is not merely to be<\/p>\n
            presumed at all times but if the issue whether the requirement<\/p>\n
            of the accommodation of the landlord or his dependent is<\/p>\n
            genuine or not it shall be examined in the context of what is<\/p>\n
            stated in the written statement. The need could be shown as<\/p>\n
            such but not merely a desire or a mere wish to secure eviction if<\/p>\n
            it was pointed out that the landlord did in fact own other<\/p>\n
            premises and there was no justification for applying          for<\/p>\n
            eviction.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
 Civil Revision No. 1397 of 2007                                 {6}<\/p>\n
            In order to succeed in the application, heavy burden was upon<\/p>\n
the petitioner to prove that the requirement of the respondent was not<\/p>\n
genuine. He specifically deposed in his affidavit that the respondent owns<\/p>\n
and possesses another house in the same urban area.            Learned Rent<\/p>\n
Controller recorded a finding that the said house belongs to the wife of the<\/p>\n
respondent. It is pertinent to note that it was also recorded by him in his<\/p>\n
order that even the rent of the demised premises is being collected by the<\/p>\n
wife of the respondent.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            Learned counsel for the respondent has heavily relied on Prem<\/p>\n
Kumar Patel’s case (supra) and on the basis thereof tried to contend that<\/p>\n
the ownership and possession of other suitable accommodation in the same<\/p>\n
urban area is no bar to Non-resident Indian to get one building of his choice<\/p>\n
vacated. Relevant portion of that judgment is reproduced below:-<\/p>\n
            “As against this, Section 13-B merely requires a claim that the<\/p>\n
            property is required by the landlord for his own use or for the<\/p>\n
            use of his dependents. The requirements of building can be for<\/p>\n
            any purpose and not necessarily for his permanent residence.<\/p>\n
            Unlike section 13-A, the ownership or possession of other<\/p>\n
            suitable accommodation in the same area is no bar on a Non-<\/p>\n
            resident Indian to get one building of his choice vacated under<\/p>\n
            Section 13-B. It is also significant to note that section 13-B<\/p>\n
            provides for recovery of possession of one entire building.<\/p>\n
            Once it is claimed by the Non-resident Indian that he requires it<\/p>\n
            for his own use, the objection that a portion of the building is<\/p>\n
            sufficient for his requirement is of no consequence. He would<\/p>\n
            still be entitled to the possession of one whole building.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
 Civil Revision No. 1397 of 2007                                {7}<\/p>\n
            In the present case, the respondent has tried to suppress the fact<\/p>\n
that he owns and possesses another house in the urban area concerned. He<\/p>\n
has come out with a plea that the said house is owned and possessed by him<\/p>\n
and still he requires the demised premises for his use and occupation. In<\/p>\n
these circumstances, he is not entitled to the benefit of the observation<\/p>\n
made in the above said judgment.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            In the case of Inderjeet Kaur’s case (Supra), it was held by<\/p>\n
the Apex Court that “assertions and counter assertions in the affidavits of<\/p>\n
the parties may not afford safe and acceptable evidence so as to arrive at an<\/p>\n
affirmative conclusion unless there is strong and acceptable evidence<\/p>\n
available to show that facts disclosed in the application filed by tenant<\/p>\n
seeking leave to defend were either frivolous, untenable or most<\/p>\n
unreasonable. At the stage of granting leave, real test should be whether<\/p>\n
facts disclosed in the application\/affidavit seeking leave to defend prima<\/p>\n
facie show that land lord would be dis-entitled from obtaining an order of<\/p>\n
eviction and not whether at the end the defence may fail.”<\/p>\n
            Therefore, from the affidavit of the petitioner, it was to be seen<\/p>\n
whether the respondent was dis-entitled from getting the possession of the<\/p>\n
demised premises. In order to succeed, he was to prove that he bona fide<\/p>\n
required that premises for his use and occupation. It stands proved from<\/p>\n
the facts that the respondent owns and possesses another house in the same<\/p>\n
urban area and nothing was said by the respondent as to what was the<\/p>\n
ground of preference for getting the demised premises vacated. From the<\/p>\n
affidavit of the tenant it prime facie stands proved that the respondent shall<\/p>\n
be dis-entitled to the recovery of the possession of the demised premises on<\/p>\n
the ground taken by him in the application under Section 13-B of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
 Civil Revision No. 1397 of 2007                             {8}<\/p>\n
Therefore, the finding recorded by the Rent Controller cannot be sustained<\/p>\n
and is liable to be set aside.\n<\/p>\n
             Accordingly, the revision petition is hereby accepted. Orders<\/p>\n
dated 17.2.2007 passed by the learned Rent Controller are set aside. The<\/p>\n
application filed by the petitioner for leave to contest is allowed. Rent<\/p>\n
Controller, Ludhiana, shall proceed in accordance with the provisions<\/p>\n
contained in Section 18-A (6)of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
             Parties are directed to appear before the Rent Controller,<\/p>\n
Ludhiana on 14.12.2009.\n<\/p>\n
                                               (GURDEV SINGH)
\n                                                  JUDGE<\/p>\n
November 10, 2009
\nPARAMJIT\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court Nelson Christopher vs Pritam Singh on 10 November, 2009 Civil Revision No. 1397 of 2007 {1} In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Civil Revision No. 1397 of 2007 Date of Decision:November 10, 2009 Nelson Christopher —Petitioner versus Pritam Singh —Respondent Coram: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH *** Present: […]<\/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":[8,28],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-197527","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-punjab-haryana-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nNelson Christopher vs Pritam Singh on 10 November, 2009 - 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\/nelson-christopher-vs-pritam-singh-on-10-november-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Nelson Christopher vs Pritam Singh on 10 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nelson-christopher-vs-pritam-singh-on-10-november-2009\" \/>\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=\"2009-11-09T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-10-08T03:24:17+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=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nelson-christopher-vs-pritam-singh-on-10-november-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nelson-christopher-vs-pritam-singh-on-10-november-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Nelson Christopher vs Pritam Singh on 10 November, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-11-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-10-08T03:24:17+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nelson-christopher-vs-pritam-singh-on-10-november-2009\"},\"wordCount\":2008,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Punjab-Haryana High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nelson-christopher-vs-pritam-singh-on-10-november-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nelson-christopher-vs-pritam-singh-on-10-november-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nelson-christopher-vs-pritam-singh-on-10-november-2009\",\"name\":\"Nelson Christopher vs Pritam Singh on 10 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-11-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-10-08T03:24:17+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nelson-christopher-vs-pritam-singh-on-10-november-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nelson-christopher-vs-pritam-singh-on-10-november-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nelson-christopher-vs-pritam-singh-on-10-november-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Nelson Christopher vs Pritam Singh on 10 November, 2009\"}]},{\"@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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"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":"Nelson Christopher vs Pritam Singh on 10 November, 2009 - 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\/nelson-christopher-vs-pritam-singh-on-10-november-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Nelson Christopher vs Pritam Singh on 10 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nelson-christopher-vs-pritam-singh-on-10-november-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-11-09T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-10-08T03:24:17+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":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nelson-christopher-vs-pritam-singh-on-10-november-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nelson-christopher-vs-pritam-singh-on-10-november-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Nelson Christopher vs Pritam Singh on 10 November, 2009","datePublished":"2009-11-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-10-08T03:24:17+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nelson-christopher-vs-pritam-singh-on-10-november-2009"},"wordCount":2008,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Punjab-Haryana High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nelson-christopher-vs-pritam-singh-on-10-november-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nelson-christopher-vs-pritam-singh-on-10-november-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nelson-christopher-vs-pritam-singh-on-10-november-2009","name":"Nelson Christopher vs Pritam Singh on 10 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-11-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-10-08T03:24:17+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nelson-christopher-vs-pritam-singh-on-10-november-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nelson-christopher-vs-pritam-singh-on-10-november-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nelson-christopher-vs-pritam-singh-on-10-november-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Nelson Christopher vs Pritam Singh on 10 November, 2009"}]},{"@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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","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\/197527","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=197527"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/197527\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=197527"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=197527"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=197527"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}