{"id":211170,"date":"2004-04-17T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2004-04-16T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-m-s-muhammad-suhail-vs-subramanyan-on-17-april-2004"},"modified":"2015-05-16T03:24:54","modified_gmt":"2015-05-15T21:54:54","slug":"p-m-s-muhammad-suhail-vs-subramanyan-on-17-april-2004","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-m-s-muhammad-suhail-vs-subramanyan-on-17-april-2004","title":{"rendered":"P.M.S.Muhammad Suhail vs Subramanyan on 17 April, 2004"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
P.M.S.Muhammad Suhail vs Subramanyan on 17 April, 2004<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS\n\nDated: 17\/04\/2004\n\nCoram\n\nThe Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.SARDAR ZACKRIA HUSSAIN\n\nCivil Revision Petition (NPD)No.2632 of 2000\n\n\nP.M.S.Muhammad Suhail                         ... Petitioner.\n\n-Vs-\n\nSubramanyan.                                 ... Respondent.\n\n        Civil Revision Petition filed under  Section  25  of  the  Tamil  Nadu\nBuildings  (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, against the judgment and decree\ndated 20.4.1999 and made in R.C.A.No.68 of  1991  on  the  file  of  the  Rent\nControl  Appellate  Authority (Sub Court), Tuticorin, confirming the order and\ndecretal order dated 22.10.1991 made in R.C.O.P.No.5 of 1990 on  the  file  of\nthe Rent Control (District Munsif) Court, Srivaikundam.\n\n!For petitioner :  Mr.M.I.Meera Sahib.\n\n^For respondent :  Mr.J.R.Prabhakaran\n\n\n:O R D E R\n<\/pre>\n
        The revision petitioner is the unsuccessful landlord before  the  Rent
\nController  and  the  Rent  Control Appellate Authority in getting an order of
\neviction on the ground of wilful default in payment of rent and  own  use  and
\noccupation.\n<\/p>\n
        2.  The revision petitioner\/landlord filed the Rent  Control  Original
\nPetition for eviction against the respondent\/tenant in respect of the petition
\npremises  bearing  door  Nos.20 and 20A, Arampalli Street, Kayalpatnam stating
\nthat he is the owner of the petition premises and also adjacent  shop  bearing
\ndoor No.19  managed  by his paternal uncle M.S.  Sheik Shamsudeen, who brought
\nhim up, and his paternal uncle as his guardian was collecting the rent.    The
\nres  pondent  herein  is  the  tenant  in respect of the petition premies on a
\nmonthly rent of Rs.110\/- and since  he  defaulted  in  payment  of  rent  from
\nSeptember,  1988  to  February,  1989,  a  letter  was  sent  by  his uncle by
\nregistered post to the respondent herein to  pay  the  arrears  of  rent  from
\nSeptember,  1988  to February, 1989 in the Bank of Madura Ltd., Kayalpatnam in
\nthe account of C\/D No.153 within three days and further requested him  to  pay
\nthe future rental amount in the said account on or before 5th of every English
\ncalendar month  and  in  case  of default, he will be liable for eviction.  On
\nreceipt of the  said  letter,  the  respondent  herein  paid  the  arrears  on
\n27.3.1989 and  also  informed the revision petitioner’s uncle at Madras.  Even
\nthereafter, the respondent herein has committed default  in  payment  of  rent
\nfrom March,  1989  to  December,  1989  which  amounts to wilful default.  The
\nrespondent herein was also put on notice on 9.1.1990 setting out the facts and
\nhis supine indifference in payment  of  rent  and  requesting  the  respondent
\nherein  to  hand  over  vacant  possession  on  1.2.1990 and that the petition
\npremises is also required for his personal occupation as he has  no  house  of
\nhis own.    The respondent herein replied on 12.1.1990 requesting the revision
\npetitioner to receive the arrears by issuing a receipt or  otherwise  he  will
\ndeposit in  the  bank  as  before.    The respondent herein also converted the
\npremises bearing door No.20A as a residential portion without  the  permission
\nof the  revision  petitioner.   The respondent herein was also informed to pay
\nthe rental  amount  in  the  bank  account  mentioned  above.    The  revision
\npetitioner  came  to  know  from  the  bank about the non-payment of rent from
\nMarch, 1989 till December, 1989.  The petition premises  bearing  door  Nos.20
\nand  20A  are  bona  fide  required  for  effecting  necessary alterations for
\nresidential purposes of the landlord and since he  also  intends  to  start  a
\nbusiness  in  building  door  No.19  in  respect  of which also he has filed a
\npetition for eviction.\n<\/p>\n
        3.  The petition was resisted in the counter admitting the quantum  of
\nrent at  Rs.110\/-  per  month.    It is further stated that since the revision
\npetitioner refused to receive the rental amount of Rs.100\/-  on  5.7.1985  and
\nalso the amount sent by money order, the revision petitioner’s agent collected
\nthe  rental  amount in lump-sum, viz., Rs.1,200 \/- on 26.1.1986, Rs.1,200\/- on
\n31.3.1986 and Rs.400\/- on 1.4.1987 and the agent of  the  revision  petitioner
\nwas in  the  habit  of  collecting  the  rent  in  lump-sum.   Even on earlier
\noccasions the sum of Rs.125\/- was collected towards the rent for the months of
\nAugust to December, 1970 by the revision petitioner’s agent in respect of  the
\npetition  premises  bearing  door  No.20  and the sum of Rs.50\/- was collected
\ntowards the rent for the months of August to December, 1970 in respect of  the
\npetition premises bearing door No.20A.  The revision petitioner was collecting
\nthe rental  amount  in lump-sum till a notice was caused in the year 1989.  As
\nper reply letter dated 27.3.1989, the rent for the months of  September,  1988
\nto  March,  1989,  viz.,  Rs.770\/-  was  deposited  in the bank account of the
\nrevision petitioner.  The rent for the months of April to December,  1989  was
\nalso deposited in the bank account of the revision petitioner also informed in
\nthe notice  dated  12.1.1990.  The requirement of the petition premises sought
\nfor residential purpose is without bona fide.  Even  the  revision  petitioner
\ngets  married, as per the custom in Kayalpatnam, the revision petitioner is to
\nreside only in the house that will be given to him by his in-laws.\n<\/p>\n
        4.  Before  the  Rent  Controller,  the  revision  petitioner\/landlord
\nexamined himself as P.W.1 and marked Exs.A-1 to A-9 and the respondent\/ tenant
\nexamined himself  as  R.W.1  and  marked  Exs.B-1  to  B-7.   The learned Rent
\nController considering such evidence, accepted the case of the tenant that  it
\nwas  in  practice  to  pay  the  rent  collectively  and in lump-sum which was
\nreceived without protest and  was  accepted  by  P.W.1  in  his  evidence  and
\ninasmuch  as  the  rental  amount claimed was also deposited in the bank under
\nExs.B-6 and B-7, in the said  circumstances,  the  tenant  has  not  committed
\ndefault  wilfully  in payment of rent as claimed for the months of March, 1989
\nto December, 1989 and further recording finding that the  requirement  of  the
\npetition  shop  for  residential  purpose  is  without  bona fide, in that the
\npetition premises is  non-residential  premises  and  so  dismissed  the  Rent
\nControl Original  Petition.  In the appeal, the learned Rent Control Appellate
\nAuthority confirmed the order of the learned Rent Controller in dismissing the
\nRent Control Original Petition.  Such concurrent finding of the  learned  Rent
\nController and the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority is under challenge
\nin this Civil Revision Petition.\n<\/p>\n
        5.   Heard  the  learned  counsel  for the revision petitioner and the
\nlearned counsel for the respondent.\n<\/p>\n
        6.  The learned counsel for the  revision  petitioner\/landlord  argued
\nthat since the rental amounts were received in lump-sum previously, the tenant
\ncannot  continue  to  pay  the  rent  as  and  when  he  chooses  to  pay  and
\ncollectively.  In this regard, the ned counsel  for  the  revision  petitioner
\npointed  out  that  despite  the  letter  Ex.A-6  dated  2  2.3.1989  was sent
\nrequesting the tenant to pay the rent in his bank account on or before 5th  of
\nevery month, the rent was not paid then and there and every month.  As regards
\nthe  requirement  of  the  petition  premises  for  own use and occupation for
\nresidential purpose of the landlord, the  learned  counsel  for  the  revision
\npetitioner\/landlord  contended that he intends to start a business in the shop
\nbearing door No.19, for which a separate petition was filed  seeking  eviction
\nand  that  to reside in Kayalpatnam he is in need of the petition premises for
\nhis residential   purpose.      The   learned   counsel   for   the   revision
\npetitioner\/landlord relied on the following decisions:-\n<\/p>\n
        (1) Lingambhotla  Subbayya   vs.  – The Subordinate Judge, Vijayawada
\nand another reported in 1951 M.L.J.  514, in which, a Division Bench  of  this
\nCourt has held:-\n<\/p>\n
        “Where  in fact there is a default in the payment of rent, it would be
\nwrong to hold that default by itself cannot be regarded as a valid  ground  to
\neject  a  tenant  in  cases  where the tenant proves that by long practice the
\nhouse-owner did not insist on regular monthly payment of rent.   There  cannot
\nbe an  agreement under which rent is payable at irregular intervals.  Though a
\nlandlord may not have been insisting on  regular  payment  and  was  accepting
\nwithout  protest arrears of rent which had accumulated, if he chooses to apply
\nunder section 7 of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control Act,  he  will
\nbe  entitled to an order of eviction, if he proves there has been a default as
\ncontemplated by the section.”\n<\/p>\n
        (2) Thayammal  vs.  – K.Subramaniam reported in 1989-I M.L.J.    407,
\nin which this Court has held at page 408:-\n<\/p>\n
        “The fact that the tenant sent the rent as soon as a notice was issued
\nto  her  with  reference  to  the wilful default will not enable the tenant to
\nplead that there was no wilful default.”\n<\/p>\n
        (3) Manickkampillai  vs.  – A.Sakuntala and another reported in  2002\n<\/p>\n
-1 Law Weekly 796, in which this Court held:-\n<\/p>\n
        “Refusal  on  the  part  of  landlord  to receive is not an excuse for
\ntenant for not paying admitted rent.  Conduct of  tenant,  held,  amounted  to
\nsupine indifference.”\n<\/p>\n
        7.   The  learned  counsel  for  the respondent\/tenant argued that the
\nagent of the revision petitioner was in the habit of collecting  the  rent  in
\nlump-sum  till  the notice Ex.A-6 caused on 22.3.1989 by the paternal uncle of
\nthe revision petitioner\/landlord and as per the reply Ex.B-4 dated  27.3.1989,
\nthe  rent for the months of September, 1988 to March, 1989, viz., Rs.770\/- was
\ndeposited in the bank account of the landlord and then the rent for the months
\nof April, 1989 to December, 1989 was also deposited in the bank  account  o  f
\nthe  landlord as informed under the notice Ex.A-2 dated 12.1.1990 and as such,
\nthe tenant has not committed default, much-less wilful default in  payment  of
\nrent for the months of March, 1989 to December, 1989.  With regard to the case
\nof  the  landlord that the petition premises required for residential purpose,
\naccording to the tenant, such requirement is without bona fide, in view of the
\nfact that the landlord, after his marriage, as per the  customs  prevalent  in
\nKayalpatnam,  is  to reside only in the house that will be given to him by his
\nin-laws.  The learned counsel for the respondent\/tenant placed  the  following
\ndecisions:-\n<\/p>\n
        (1) Abdul  Hameed  vs.  – M.Sultan Abdul Kader reported in 1996-2 Law
\nWeekly 525, in which this Court held:-\n<\/p>\n
        “The  Appellate  Authority   failed   to   appreciate   the   peculiar
\ncircumstances  of  this  case and the conduct of the landlord in receiving the
\nrent in lump-sum for four months or six months.  Though in the  present  case,
\nthe  default was for 12 months, immediately on the filing of the petition, the
\nentire arrears have been paid.   The  trial  court  exercised  its  discretion
\ncorrectly and came to the conclusion that the non-payment of rent was only due
\nto the  practice,  which  existed  between  the  landlord and the tenant.  The
\npetitioner-tenant was not given to understand at any time  either  overtly  or
\ncovertly  that the respondent-landlord is going to utilise this situation as a
\nruse to get eviction.  The petitioner deposited the entire arrears even at the
\nfirst instance without the trial court granting any  reasonable  time.    This
\nimportant fact was not taken note of by the Appellate Authority.  The order of
\nthe  Appellate  Authority,  which is impugned in this revision, is, therefore,
\nliable to be set aside and the eviction ordered cannot, therefore, stand.”\n<\/p>\n
        (2) Mohammed Arif and 2 others  vs.  – K.P.R.Jafarullah  reported  in
\n1998-2 Law Weekly 610, in which this Court held:-\n<\/p>\n
        “In view  of the above dictum (in 1996-2 L.W.  525 (Abdul Hameed  vs.\n<\/p>\n
– Sultlan Abdul Kader)) and on the basis of the  facts  the  findings  of  the
\nauthorities  below  that  the tenants had committed default in payment of rent
\nwilfully cannot be sustained in law.  So, in this regard  the  orders  of  the
\ncourts below cannot be sustained and they are hereby set aside.”\n<\/p>\n
        (3) M\/s.Chordia  Automobiles  vs.  – S.Moosa and others reported in 2
\n000(1) CTC 742, in which in paragraph 8, the Apex Court has ruled:-\n<\/p>\n
        “Wilful default means an act consciously  or  deliberately  done  with
\nopen defiance  and intent not to pay the rent.  In the present case the amount
\nof rent defaulted firstly is on account of the fact  that  the  agent  of  the
\nlandlord did not come to collect the rent for some reason.  Further, notice of
\ndefault contained  disputed  rent.    This  fact  coupled  with  the fact that
\neviction suit was filed before maturing a case of wilful default in  terms  of
\nthe Explanation  to  the  provision  of  Section  10(2).   The dispute of rent
\nadmittedly was genuine.  Further, we find conduct of the appellant  throughout
\nin the  past  being  not of a defaulter or irregular payer of rent.  Thus, all
\nthese  circumstances  cumulatively  come  to  only  one  conclusion  that  the
\nappellant cannot be held to be a wilful defaulter.”\n<\/p>\n
        8.  The Rent Control Original Petition was filed setting out the clear
\ncase  that the tenant committed default in payment of rent from March, 1989 to
\nDecember, 1989 that despite  the  request  made  as  per  the  letter  of  the
\nlandlord’s  paternal  uncle  under  Ex.A-6 dated 22.3.1989 to deposit the rent
\nevery month in the account of the landlord as mentioned in  the  said  letter,
\nthe tenant not deposited the rent every month regularly.  As per letter Ex.B-4
\ndated  27.3.1989 by way of reply to the letter Ex.A-6, the tenant has informed
\nthat he would deposit the rental amount for the months of September,  1988  to
\nMarch,  1989,  viz.,  Rs.770\/- in the bank account of the landlord as informed
\nunder Ex.A-6.  As per the counter-foil Ex.B-6 dated 27.3.1989, it is seen that
\nthe tenant has deposited a sum of Rs.770\/- on 27.3.1989 to the account of  the
\nlandlord.   The  landlord  caused  lawyer  notice  under Ex.A-1 dated 9.1.1990
\nstating that the tenant has not deposited the rental amount for the months  of
\nMarch,  1989  onwards  in the account of the landlord as directed under Ex.A-6
\ndated 22.3.1989 and the tenant has committed default wilfully  in  payment  of
\nrent for  the  months  of  March, 19 89 to December, 1989.  The tenant replied
\nunder Ex.A-2 dated 12.1.199 0 requesting the landlord or the power of attorney
\nagent to come and collect the rent in person under receipt, failure of  which,
\nhe will deposit the rent for the months of April, 1989 to December, 1989 for 9
\nmonths, viz.,  Rs.990\/-  in  the  bank  account  of  the  landlord.    As  per
\ncounter-foil Ex.B-7 dated  28.1.1990,  the  tenant  has  deposited  a  sum  of
\nRs.990\/-  towards  the rent for the months of April, 1989 to December, 1989 in
\nthe account of the landlord.  It is seen from Ex.B-1 dated 26.11.1988,  Ex.B-2
\ndated  31.3.1986  and  Ex.B-3  dated  1.4.1987 that the tenant paid the rental
\namount in lump-sum and it was accepted by the  landlord’s  paternal  uncle  as
\npower of  attorney.    But  even after the notice under Ex.A-6 dated 22.3.1989
\nthat the rent is payable by the tenant on or before 5th  of  every  month  and
\nthat  he failed to pay the rent for 6 months from September, 1988 to February,
\n1989 and requested the tenant to pay  the  arrears  of  rent  in  the  account
\nNo.153,  Madura  Bank,  Kayalpatnam  Branch,  the tenant paid in lump-sum i.e.
\nRs.770\/- on 27.3.1989 as per Ex.B-6 in the Account No.153, Bank of Madura Ltd.
\nThe duty is cast upon the tenant after such clear notice under Ex.A-6 that the
\nrent is to be paid every month, but again the tenant failed to  pay  the  rent
\nfor  the  months  of  April, 1989 to December, 1989 and paid in lump-sum i.e.,
\nRs.990\/- in the bank account only on 28.1  .1990  under  Ex.B-7  after  notice
\nEx.A-2 dated  12.1.1990.   Though it can be said that it was within two months
\nafter causing of the notice under Ex.A-2, the arrears of rent for  the  months
\nof  April,  1989  to  December, 1989 was paid under Ex.B-7 on 27.1.1990 and so
\nthere have been supine indifference and callousness on the part of the  tenant
\nin depositing the rent, as such, in the bank account.\n<\/p>\n
        9.   Further, it is not averred that the tenant was not informed as to
\nhow the rent is payable as per Ex.A-6 dated 22.3.1989.  The paternal uncle and
\npower of attorney agent of the landlord has clearly informed the tenant to pay
\nthe rental amount in the bank account of the landlord and in fact, the  tenant
\nalso  paid  Rs.770\/- under Ex.B-6 on 27.3.1989 towards the rent for the months
\nof September, 1988 to March, 1989, but still as if he was not informed  as  to
\nhow  the  rent  is  to  be  paid  he  sent  reply under Ex.A-2 dated 12.1.1990
\nrequesting the power of attorney of the  landlord  to  come  and  collect  the
\nrental amount in person under receipt and failure of such, he will deposit the
\nrent  in  the  bank  account  of the landlord for the months of April, 1989 to
\nDecember, 1989, just to get time and he deposited a sum  of  Rs.990\/-  towards
\nrent under   Ex.B-7   only   on   28.1.1990.    The  tenant  deliberately  and
\nintentionally committed such default in payment of  rent  for  the  months  of
\nApril,  1989  to December, 1989 and such default amounts to wilful, in that it
\nis clear that the tenant deposited the arrears of rent as such only  with  the
\nintention not to pay the rent regularly.  Therefore, the landlord has made out
\nthe  case  for eviction on the ground of wilful default in payment of rent for
\nthe months of March, 1989 to December, 1989 by the tenant.\n<\/p>\n
        10.  With regard to the requirement of the petition  premises  bearing
\ndoor Nos.20 and 20A bona fide for the residential purpose, the case set out in
\nthe  petition  is  that  the landlord is also owning adjacent premises bearing
\ndoor No.19 occupied by a tenant and to evict him he already filed  a  petition
\nand  by  making  s  uitable  alterations  in  the  petition  premises  for the
\nresidential purpose he will  use  the  same.    In  the  notice  Ex.A-1  dated
\n9.1.1990,  it  is  stated  that  the  premises  is  required  for  own use and
\noccupation of the landlord for residential purpose, in that he is  not  owning
\nany  other residential building in Kayalpatnam and that he is residing only in
\nthe house of his sister and by doing business in the adjacent premises bearing
\ndoor No.19, after vacating the tenant in that premises.  The landlord as P.W.1
\nhas stated that the premises bearing door No.20 is  used  for  non-residential
\npurpose  and  the premises bearing door No.20A is used for residential purpose
\nand both are in dilapidated condition.  It is further his evidence that he has
\nobtained permission and sanctioned plan from  the  panchayat  to  put  up  new
\nconstruction after demolishing the petition premises under Exs.A-3 and A-4 and
\nhe does  not  own  any  other  residential  premises in Kayalpatnam.  The Rent
\nControl Original Petition is not filed seeking the petition premises  for  the
\npurpose of  demolition and reconstruction.  The requirement sought is only for
\nown use and occupation for the residential purpose of the landlord.\n<\/p>\n
        11.  Though in the Rent Control Original Petition, it is not mentioned
\nthat the eviction is sought under Section 10(3) of the  Tamil  Nadu  Buildings
\n(Lease  and  Rent  Control)  Act  without  stating whether it is under Section
\n10(3)(a)(i) or under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act, in paragraph 5  of  the
\npetition,  it  is  stated  that  the  petition  premises  is  sought  for  the
\nresidential purpose after effecting necessary alterations,  since  he  has  no
\nhouse  on  his  own for living and since he intends to start a business in the
\nadjacent premises bearing door No.19 in respect of which, already an  eviction
\npetition  has  been  filed  and  as  such,  the  requirement  is under Section
\n10(3)(a)(i) for residential purpose.\n<\/p>\n
        12.   It  is  admitted by the tenant in his evidence as R.W.1 that the
\nlandlord is residing in the house of his sister at Kayalpatnam  and  often  he
\ngoes over  to  Madras.    Further,  it  is  his  evidence that previously, the
\npetition premises was both for residential or nonresidential.   Therefore,  it
\nis  clear  that  by  making suitable alterations, the petition premises can be
\nutilised for residential purpose.  R.W.1 though stated in  his  evidence  that
\nthe  landlord  also  owns  house  at Ambalamarakayar Street at Kayalpatnam, no
\nparticulars have been furnished and in this aspect even the landlord as  P.W.1
\nhas  not  been cross-examined as to whether he owns a house at Ambalamarakayar
\nStreet at Kayalpatnam.  Therefore, the requirement of the petition premises by
\nthe landlord for residential purposes is very  much  bona  fide  and  on  that
\nground also,  the landlord is entitled for eviction.  The learned Rent Control
\nAppellate Authority has not recorded correct and proper finding on the grounds
\nsought for eviction and therefore, the judgment and decree made by the learned
\nRent Control Appellate Authority are to be set aside.\n<\/p>\n
        13.  In the result, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed with cost,
\nordering  eviction on the ground of wilful default in payment of rent and also
\non the ground of own use and occupation and setting  aside  the  judgment  and
\ndecree dated 20.4.1999 made in R.C.A.No.68 of 1991 by the learned Rent Control
\nAppellate Authority.\n<\/p>\n
Index:  Yes
\nInternet:Yes<\/p>\n
ts.\n<\/p>\n
To<\/p>\n
1) The Subordinate Judge,
\nTuticorin.\n<\/p>\n
2) The District Munsif,
\nSrivaikundam.\n<\/p>\n
3) The Section Officer,
\nV.R.  Section, High Court, Madras.\n<\/p>\n
S.SARDAR ZACKRIA HUSSAIN,J.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court P.M.S.Muhammad Suhail vs Subramanyan on 17 April, 2004 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated: 17\/04\/2004 Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.SARDAR ZACKRIA HUSSAIN Civil Revision Petition (NPD)No.2632 of 2000 P.M.S.Muhammad Suhail … Petitioner. -Vs- Subramanyan. … Respondent. Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings […]<\/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-211170","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nP.M.S.Muhammad Suhail vs Subramanyan on 17 April, 2004 - 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\/p-m-s-muhammad-suhail-vs-subramanyan-on-17-april-2004\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"P.M.S.Muhammad Suhail vs Subramanyan on 17 April, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-m-s-muhammad-suhail-vs-subramanyan-on-17-april-2004\" \/>\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=\"2004-04-16T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-05-15T21:54:54+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=\"17 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-m-s-muhammad-suhail-vs-subramanyan-on-17-april-2004#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-m-s-muhammad-suhail-vs-subramanyan-on-17-april-2004\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"P.M.S.Muhammad Suhail vs Subramanyan on 17 April, 2004\",\"datePublished\":\"2004-04-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-05-15T21:54:54+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-m-s-muhammad-suhail-vs-subramanyan-on-17-april-2004\"},\"wordCount\":3383,\"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\\\/p-m-s-muhammad-suhail-vs-subramanyan-on-17-april-2004#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-m-s-muhammad-suhail-vs-subramanyan-on-17-april-2004\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-m-s-muhammad-suhail-vs-subramanyan-on-17-april-2004\",\"name\":\"P.M.S.Muhammad Suhail vs Subramanyan on 17 April, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2004-04-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-05-15T21:54:54+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-m-s-muhammad-suhail-vs-subramanyan-on-17-april-2004#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-m-s-muhammad-suhail-vs-subramanyan-on-17-april-2004\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-m-s-muhammad-suhail-vs-subramanyan-on-17-april-2004#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"P.M.S.Muhammad Suhail vs Subramanyan on 17 April, 2004\"}]},{\"@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":"P.M.S.Muhammad Suhail vs Subramanyan on 17 April, 2004 - 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\/p-m-s-muhammad-suhail-vs-subramanyan-on-17-april-2004","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"P.M.S.Muhammad Suhail vs Subramanyan on 17 April, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-m-s-muhammad-suhail-vs-subramanyan-on-17-april-2004","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2004-04-16T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-05-15T21:54:54+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":"17 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-m-s-muhammad-suhail-vs-subramanyan-on-17-april-2004#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-m-s-muhammad-suhail-vs-subramanyan-on-17-april-2004"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"P.M.S.Muhammad Suhail vs Subramanyan on 17 April, 2004","datePublished":"2004-04-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-05-15T21:54:54+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-m-s-muhammad-suhail-vs-subramanyan-on-17-april-2004"},"wordCount":3383,"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\/p-m-s-muhammad-suhail-vs-subramanyan-on-17-april-2004#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-m-s-muhammad-suhail-vs-subramanyan-on-17-april-2004","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-m-s-muhammad-suhail-vs-subramanyan-on-17-april-2004","name":"P.M.S.Muhammad Suhail vs Subramanyan on 17 April, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2004-04-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-05-15T21:54:54+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-m-s-muhammad-suhail-vs-subramanyan-on-17-april-2004#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-m-s-muhammad-suhail-vs-subramanyan-on-17-april-2004"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-m-s-muhammad-suhail-vs-subramanyan-on-17-april-2004#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"P.M.S.Muhammad Suhail vs Subramanyan on 17 April, 2004"}]},{"@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\/211170","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=211170"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/211170\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=211170"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=211170"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=211170"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}