{"id":211280,"date":"1975-10-08T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1975-10-07T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maulavi-abdur-rub-firoze-ahmed-co-vs-jay-krishna-arora-on-8-october-1975"},"modified":"2016-03-24T04:25:28","modified_gmt":"2016-03-23T22:55:28","slug":"maulavi-abdur-rub-firoze-ahmed-co-vs-jay-krishna-arora-on-8-october-1975","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maulavi-abdur-rub-firoze-ahmed-co-vs-jay-krishna-arora-on-8-october-1975","title":{"rendered":"Maulavi Abdur Rub Firoze Ahmed &amp; Co vs Jay Krishna Arora on 8 October, 1975"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Maulavi Abdur Rub Firoze Ahmed &amp; Co vs Jay Krishna Arora on 8 October, 1975<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_citations\">Equivalent citations: 1976 AIR  479, \t\t  1976 SCR  (2) 205<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: N Untwalia<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: Untwalia, N.L.<\/div>\n<pre>           PETITIONER:\nMAULAVI ABDUR RUB FIROZE AHMED &amp; CO.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nJAY KRISHNA ARORA\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT08\/10\/1975\n\nBENCH:\nUNTWALIA, N.L.\nBENCH:\nUNTWALIA, N.L.\nALAGIRISWAMI, A.\nGOSWAMI, P.K.\n\nCITATION:\n 1976 AIR  479\t\t  1976 SCR  (2) 205\n 1976 SCC  (1) 295\n\n\nACT:\n     West Bengal  Premises Tenancy  Act 1956-Section  20 and\nSchedule  there-to-Scope  regarding  jurisdiction  vis-a-vis\nSection 5(2)  of the  city Civil,  Court Act 1953-Landlord's\nneed  of   the\tbusiness   premises  for  personal  use\t and\noccupation for residential purpose is not barred by law.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n     The  plaintiff-respondent\t obtained  a  decree  in  an\neviction suit  filed u\/s  20 of\t the  West  Bengal  Premises\nTenancy Act,  1956 on the original side of the Calcutta High\nCourt on the grounds of \"personal use and occupation\", which\nwas confirmed  by a bench of the High Court. On an appeal by\ncertificate of\tfitness, the  defendant-appellant raised the\nfollowing contentions:\n     (i) That  the Civil  Court at Calcutta and not the High\nCourt had  jurisdiction to try the suit as per section 20 of\nthe West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act 1956.\n     (ii) That\tthere could  be no reasonable requirement of\nthe landlord  of the suit premises for residential purposes,\nas they were being used by the tenant appellant for business\npurpose. The  requirement of the landlord must exist for the\nsame purpose  to which\tthe premises  were being used by the\ntenants.\n     (iii) That\t in any\t event the  High Court ought to have\ndecreed the  suit for  eviction from  a part of the premises\nonly under section 13(4) of the West Bengal Premises tenancy\nAct 1956.\n     Dismissing the appeal, the Court\n^\n     HELD :  (i) Section  20 is\t couched in a language which\ndoes not determine merely the place of suing but affects the\njurisdiction of\t one court  or the  other. Triability of the\nsuit by\t the High  Court excludes the triability by the city\ncivil court. [207-D]\n     (ii) If  a suit  were to  be instituted  in a  court to\nwhich both  Section 8  of the  Suit Valuation  Act 1887\t and\nsection 7(xi)(cc) of the Court Fee Act 1870 would apply, the\nnature of the suit both for the purposes of jurisdiction and\ncourt fee  will be  the amount\tof rent\t payable during\t the\npreceding 12  months. But  on the original civil side of the\nCalcutta High  Court the  procedure  followed  and  the\t law\napplicable is different. Within the local limits of ordinary\nOriginal Civil\tJurisdiction of\t the Calcutta High Court the\nlegislature thought  to provide\t that, if  the value  of the\nsuit exceeded  Rs. 10,000\/- it was only entertainable by the\nHigh Court at Calcutta. But apart from the value of the suit\nif the\tvalue of  the suit premises of which the recovery of\npossession is  claimed exceeds\tRs. 10,000\/-  only the\tHigh\nCourt can  entertain such  a  suit.  The  intention  of\t the\nlegislature is that if the value of the premises exceeds Rs.\n10,000\/- then  irrespective of\tthe value  of the  suit, the\nsuit can  be entertained  only by  the High Court and not by\nthe City Civil Court. [207F, G-H, 208-A]\n     (iii) There  is no conflict between Section 5(2) of the\ncity civil  court and Section 20 of the West Bengal Premises\nTenancy Act  of 1956  read with its Schedule. The High Court\nalone has  the jurisdiction to try the suit and not the city\ncivil court,  in the  view, either  the value  of the  suits\nexceeds Rs.  10,000\/-or because\t of the special provision in\nthe Act when the market value of the premises (not the value\nof the lease held interest) exceeds Rs. 10,000\/- [208 F-G]\n     (iv) The  law does\t not require  the landlord must need\nthe premises  for his own occupation only for the purpose to\nwhich they were being put by the tenant. It may well be that\na tenant cannot put the demised premises to any\n206\nother use.  But there  is no  bar in  law in  the way of the\nlandlord requiring the business premises for his residential\noccupation and\tvice versa provided the premises are capable\nof being put to different uses. [309-E]\n     <a href=\"\/doc\/843614\/\">B. Banerjee  v. Smt.  Anita Pan, A.I.R.<\/a> 1975 S.C. 1146,\nreferred to.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1937 or<br \/>\n1974.\n<\/p>\n<p>     From the  Judgment and  Decree dated  the\t6th  August,<br \/>\n1974, of  the Calcutta\tHigh Court  in Appeal  from Original<br \/>\nDecree No. 21 of 1972.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Purshottam Chattarjee and Rathin Das for the Appellant.<br \/>\n     Govinda  Mukhoty\tand  G.\t  S.  Chatterjee   for\t the<br \/>\nRespondent.\n<\/p>\n<p>     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by<br \/>\n     UNTWALIA, J.  The defendant appellant in this appeal by<br \/>\ncertificate of the Calcutta High Court is a firm carrying on<br \/>\nbusiness in  the town  of Calcutta. The plaintiff respondent<br \/>\nfiled a\t suit for  eviction of\tthe appellant from the first<br \/>\nand second  floors of  the building  No. 86,  Purshottam Rai<br \/>\nStreet, Calcutta  on the  ground that he reasonably required<br \/>\nthe suit premises for his own use and occupation and that he<br \/>\nhad no\tother house  in or  around Calcutta  where he  could<br \/>\nreside. The  suit was instituted on the original side of the<br \/>\nCalcutta High  Court. It  was contested\t by the appellant on<br \/>\nseveral grounds.  The learned  Trial Judge decreed the suit.<br \/>\nThe appellant&#8217;s\t appeal was dismissed by a Bench of the High<br \/>\nCourt.\tIt   has  come\tto  this  Court\t after\tobtaining  a<br \/>\ncertificate of fitness from the High Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Mr. Purshottam  Chatterjee,  learned  counsel  for\t the<br \/>\nappellant urged\t the following\tpoints in  support  of\tthis<br \/>\nappeal:\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>\t  (1)  That the\t High Court  had no  jurisdiction to<br \/>\n\t       try the\tsuit, Only  the City  Civil Court at<br \/>\n\t       Calcutta had jurisdiction to try it.<br \/>\n\t  (2)  That there could be no reasonable requirement<br \/>\n\t       of the  landlord of  the\t suit  premises\t for<br \/>\n\t       residential purpose,  as they were being used<br \/>\n\t       by the tenant appellant for business purpose.<br \/>\n\t       The requirement\tof the\tlandlord must  exist<br \/>\n\t       for the\tsame purpose  to which\tthe premises<br \/>\n\t       were being used by the tenant.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>\t  (3)  In any  event the  High Court  ought to\thave<br \/>\n\t       decreed the  suit for eviction from a part of<br \/>\n\t       the premises  only in accordance with section<br \/>\n\t       13(4) of\t the West  Bengal  Premises  Tenancy<br \/>\n\t       Act, 1956-hereinafter called the Act.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>     The point\tof jurisdiction of the High Court to try the<br \/>\nsuit was  very strenuously  urged and  does need our careful<br \/>\nconsideration. The  suit in  question was  instituted in the<br \/>\nCalcutta High  Court on\t the 3rd of October, 1969. After the<br \/>\ninstitution of\tthe suit  the Act  stood amended by the West<br \/>\nBengal Premises\t Tenancy (Second Amendment) Act, West Bengal<br \/>\nAct 34 of 1969-hereinafter called the Amendment Act. Section<br \/>\n20 of the Act had already been amended by an Amending Act of<br \/>\n1957 (West Bengal Act 27 of 1957). It reads as follows:\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>\t  &#8220;Notwithstanding anything  contained in  any other<br \/>\n     law, a  suit or  proceeding by  a\tlandlord  against  a<br \/>\n     tenant in which re-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">207<\/span><\/p>\n<blockquote><p>     covery of\tpossession of any premises to which this Act<br \/>\n     applies is\t claimed shall lie to the Courts, as set out<br \/>\n     in the  Schedule, and no other Court shall be competent<br \/>\n     to entertain or try such suit or proceeding.&#8221;<br \/>\n     The relevant portion of the Schedule runs as follows:<br \/>\n\t  (1)  Where  the  premises  are  situate  on  land,<br \/>\n     wholly within  the Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction<br \/>\n     of the Calcutta High Court-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>     (i)  Where the  value of  the  suit  or  the  value  of<br \/>\n\t  premises  of\t which\trecovery  of  possession  is<br \/>\n\t  claimed does not exceed ten thousand rupees-to the<br \/>\n\t  City Civil  Court as\tdefined in  the\t City  Civil<br \/>\n\t  Court Act, 1953 (W.B. Act 21 of 1953);\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>     (ii) Where the  value of  the suit exceeds ten thousand<br \/>\n\t  rupees-to the High Court at Calcutta.&#8221;<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>     Section 20\t is couched  in a  language which  does\t not<br \/>\ndetermine  merely   the\t place\tof  suing  but\taffects\t the<br \/>\njurisdiction of\t the one  court or  the other.\tIf under the<br \/>\nschedule, the  suit is\ttriable by  the High Court, the City<br \/>\nCivil Court  has no  jurisdiction to  try it.  While, on the<br \/>\nother hand,  if the  latter had\t jurisdiction to try it, the<br \/>\nformer will  have no jurisdiction to do so. The inclusion of<br \/>\nthe word  &#8216;proceeding&#8217; in  section 20 by the Amending Act of<br \/>\n1957, will  not make  any  difference  for  the\t purpose  of<br \/>\ndetermination of  the point  at\t issue\tin  this  case.\t The<br \/>\nschedule, however,  does not  seem to be happily worded. Yet<br \/>\nit is  not difficult  to spell\tout  the  intention  of\t the<br \/>\nlegislature.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Under section  8 of  the  Suits  Valuation\t Act,  1887,<br \/>\nexcept in few exceptions mentioned therein, the value of the<br \/>\nsuit for  the purposes\tof Court fee and jurisdiction is the<br \/>\nsame. Under  section 7 (xi) (cc) of the Court Fees Act, 1870<br \/>\nthe amount  of Court  Fee payable in a suit for the recovery<br \/>\nof immovable property from a tenant is on the amount of rent<br \/>\nfor the\t suit premises\tpayable for the year next before the<br \/>\ndate of\t presenting the\t plaint. If  the  suit\twere  to  be<br \/>\ninstituted in  a court to which the two acts would apply the<br \/>\nvalue of  the suit both for the purposes of jurisdiction and<br \/>\ncourt fee  will be  the amount\tof rent\t payable during\t the<br \/>\npreceding 12  months. But  on the Original Civil Side of the<br \/>\nCalcutta High  Court the  procedure  followed  and  the\t law<br \/>\napplicable is different.\n<\/p>\n<p>     In the  instant case the rental was about Rs. 110\/- per<br \/>\nmonth. On  that basis  the value  of the  suit ought to have<br \/>\nbeen Rs.  1320\/- only.\tThat being so the suit, according to<br \/>\nthe contention\tof the\tappellant, was entertainable only by<br \/>\nthe City  Civil Court and not by the High Court The argument<br \/>\nso presented  does not,\t however, stand scrutiny. Within the<br \/>\nlocal limits  of Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction of the<br \/>\nCalcutta High  Court the legislature thought to provide that<br \/>\nif the\tvalue of  the suit exceeded Rs. 10,000\/- it was only<br \/>\nentertainable by  the High  Court at  Calcutta. If the value<br \/>\nwas below  Rs. 10,000\/-\t the City Civil Court only will have<br \/>\nthe jurisdiction.  But apart  from the\tvalue of the suit if<br \/>\nthe value  of the  suit premises  of which  the recovery  of<br \/>\npossession is<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">208<\/span><br \/>\nclaimed exceeds\t Rs. 10,000\/- then the City Civil Court will<br \/>\nhave no\t jurisdiction to try a suit. Only the High Court can<br \/>\nentertain such\ta suit.\t The intention\tof  the\t legislature<br \/>\nseems to  be that  if the  value of the premises exceeds Rs.<br \/>\n10,000\/- then  irrespective of\tthe value  of the  suit, the<br \/>\nsuit can  be entertained  only by  the High Court and not by<br \/>\nthe City Civil Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>     But that  apart, we  may also  rest our  judgment on  a<br \/>\nsimple basis.  Assuming the  plaintiff could have valued his<br \/>\nsuit at\t Rs. 1320\/-  but he  chose to value it in accordance<br \/>\nwith the  value of  the suit  premises, there was nothing in<br \/>\nlaw to\tcompel him  to put  the lower  valuation and not the<br \/>\nhigher. The  value of  the suit\t premises mentioned  in\t the<br \/>\nplaint cannot  be  said\t to  be\t contrary  to  law  and\t the<br \/>\nplaintiff is not obliged to put the 12 months&#8217; rental value.<br \/>\nIn the\tinstant case  the plaintiff  asserted in  his plaint<br \/>\nthat the  value of  the suit premises exceeded Rs. 10,000\/-.<br \/>\nThe defendant  asserted in  its written\t statement that\t the<br \/>\nsuit was &#8220;under valued&#8221;; it ought to have been valued at the<br \/>\namount of  one year&#8217;s  rent. Perhaps  the use  of  the\tword<br \/>\n&#8220;under-valued&#8221; is  a mistake for the word &#8220;over-valued&#8221;. The<br \/>\nstatement in  the plaint  being squarely  in accordance with<br \/>\nthe law\t and not  contrary to  it, the\tHigh Court  was\t the<br \/>\nproper forum  for the institution and trial of the suit. The<br \/>\nplaint could not be instituted in the City Civil Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Mr. Chatterjee  also placed  reliance upon section 5(2)<br \/>\nof the\tCity Civil  Court Act, 1953 as stood at the relevant<br \/>\ntime. It says:\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>\t  &#8220;Subject to the provisions of sub-sections (3) and<br \/>\n     (4), and  of section 9, the City Civil Court shall have<br \/>\n     jurisdiction  and\t the  High   Court  shall  not\thave<br \/>\n     jurisdiction to  try suits\t and proceedings  of a civil<br \/>\n     nature, not exceeding rupees ten thousand in value.&#8221;<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>     Counsel submitted\tthat according to the said provision<br \/>\nof law\tthe City Civil Court alone will have jurisdiction to<br \/>\ntry a  suit of\ta civil\t nature the  value of which does not<br \/>\nexceed Rs.  10,000\/-. There  is no  conflict between section<br \/>\n5(2) of\t the City Civil Court and section 20 of the Act read<br \/>\nwith its  schedule. In\tthe view  which\t we  have  expressed<br \/>\nabove, either  the value of the suit exceeds Rs. 10,000\/- or<br \/>\nbecause of  the special provision in the Act when the market<br \/>\nvalue of  the premises\t(not the  value of  the\t lease\thold<br \/>\ninterest) exceeds  Rs. 10,000\/-\t the High  Court  alone\t has<br \/>\njurisdiction to\t try such  a suit  and not  the\t City  Civil<br \/>\nCourt.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Section 13 (1) (f) of the Act as it stood before it was<br \/>\namended by  the Amendment  Act stated the ground of eviction<br \/>\nin clause (f) as follows:\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>\t  &#8220;Where the premises are reasonably required by the<br \/>\n     landlord either for purposes of building or re-building<br \/>\n     or\t for   making  thereto\t substantial  additions\t  or<br \/>\n     alterations or  for his  own occupation  if he  is\t the<br \/>\n     owner or  for the\toccupation of  any person  for whose<br \/>\n     benefit the premises are held;&#8221;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">209<\/span><\/p>\n<p>By the\tAmendment Act  with retrospective effect, instead of<br \/>\nclause (f)  there were\tbrought about  two clauses, viz. (f)<br \/>\nand (ff). They run as follows:\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>\t  &#8220;(f) subject\tto the provision of sub-section (3A)<br \/>\n     and section  18A, where  the  premises  are  reasonably<br \/>\n     required by  the landlord\tfor purposes  of building or<br \/>\n     re-building or for making thereto substantial additions<br \/>\n     or alterations,  and such\tbuilding or  re-building, or<br \/>\n     additions or alterations, cannot be carried out without<br \/>\n     the premises being vacated;&#8221;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>\t  &#8220;(ff) subject\t to the\t provisions  of\t sub-section<br \/>\n     (3A), where the premises are reasonably required by the<br \/>\n     landlord for  his own  occupation if he is the owner or<br \/>\n     for the  occupation of any person for whose benefit the<br \/>\n     premises are  held and  the landlord  or such person is<br \/>\n     not  in   possession   of\t any   reasonably   suitable<br \/>\n     accommodation.&#8221;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>The constitutional  validity of\t the retrospective operation<br \/>\nof the\tAmendment Act was upheld in the majority decision of<br \/>\nthis Court  in <a href=\"\/doc\/843614\/\">B.  Banerjee v.\tSmt. Anita  Pan<\/a>(1). The High<br \/>\nCourt has  recorded a  finding in  this case  which squarely<br \/>\ncovers the  requirement of  clause (ff)\t introduced  by\t the<br \/>\nAmendment Act.\tThe learned  Trial Judge  has  found,  which<br \/>\nfinding was  upheld by\tthe High  Court, that the respondent<br \/>\nnot only  required the\tsuit premises for his own occupation<br \/>\nbut was\t not in\t possession of any other reasonably suitable<br \/>\naccommodation. The  law does  not require  that the landlord<br \/>\nmust need  the premises\t for his own occupation only for the<br \/>\npurpose to  which they\twere being put by the tenant. It may<br \/>\nwell be that a tenant cannot put the demised premises to any<br \/>\nother use.  But there  is no  bar in  law in  the way of the<br \/>\nlandlord requiring the business premises for his residential<br \/>\noccupation and vice versa, provided the premises are capable<br \/>\nof being  put to  different uses, as they seem to be in this<br \/>\ncase.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Even apropos  the last  point urged  on behalf  of\t the<br \/>\nappellant we  find no  error in\t the decision  of  the\tHigh<br \/>\nCourt. In  view of  the provision  of law  contained in sub-<br \/>\nsection (4)  of section\t 13 of\tthe Act,  the High Court has<br \/>\ncome to\t the conclusion\t that it  was not  a case  where the<br \/>\neviction of  the tenant\t could be ordered only from the part<br \/>\nof the\tpremises. Having  appreciated the facts as they were<br \/>\nplaced before  us by  learned counsel  for the appellant and<br \/>\nMr. G  Mukhoty, learned counsel for the respondent, we agree<br \/>\nwith the conclusion of the High Court in this regard also.\n<\/p>\n<p>     For the  reasons stated  above, the appeal fails and is<br \/>\ndismissed with costs.\n<\/p>\n<pre>S.R.\t\t\t\t\t   Appeal dismissed.\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">210<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Maulavi Abdur Rub Firoze Ahmed &amp; Co vs Jay Krishna Arora on 8 October, 1975 Equivalent citations: 1976 AIR 479, 1976 SCR (2) 205 Author: N Untwalia Bench: Untwalia, N.L. PETITIONER: MAULAVI ABDUR RUB FIROZE AHMED &amp; CO. Vs. RESPONDENT: JAY KRISHNA ARORA DATE OF JUDGMENT08\/10\/1975 BENCH: UNTWALIA, N.L. BENCH: UNTWALIA, [&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-211280","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.6 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Maulavi Abdur Rub Firoze Ahmed &amp; Co vs Jay Krishna Arora on 8 October, 1975 - 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\/maulavi-abdur-rub-firoze-ahmed-co-vs-jay-krishna-arora-on-8-october-1975\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Maulavi Abdur Rub Firoze Ahmed &amp; Co vs Jay Krishna Arora on 8 October, 1975 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maulavi-abdur-rub-firoze-ahmed-co-vs-jay-krishna-arora-on-8-october-1975\" \/>\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=\"1975-10-07T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-03-23T22:55:28+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=\"13 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/maulavi-abdur-rub-firoze-ahmed-co-vs-jay-krishna-arora-on-8-october-1975#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/maulavi-abdur-rub-firoze-ahmed-co-vs-jay-krishna-arora-on-8-october-1975\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Maulavi Abdur Rub Firoze Ahmed &amp; Co vs Jay Krishna Arora on 8 October, 1975\",\"datePublished\":\"1975-10-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-03-23T22:55:28+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/maulavi-abdur-rub-firoze-ahmed-co-vs-jay-krishna-arora-on-8-october-1975\"},\"wordCount\":1932,\"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\\\/maulavi-abdur-rub-firoze-ahmed-co-vs-jay-krishna-arora-on-8-october-1975#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/maulavi-abdur-rub-firoze-ahmed-co-vs-jay-krishna-arora-on-8-october-1975\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/maulavi-abdur-rub-firoze-ahmed-co-vs-jay-krishna-arora-on-8-october-1975\",\"name\":\"Maulavi Abdur Rub Firoze Ahmed &amp; Co vs Jay Krishna Arora on 8 October, 1975 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1975-10-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-03-23T22:55:28+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/maulavi-abdur-rub-firoze-ahmed-co-vs-jay-krishna-arora-on-8-october-1975#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/maulavi-abdur-rub-firoze-ahmed-co-vs-jay-krishna-arora-on-8-october-1975\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/maulavi-abdur-rub-firoze-ahmed-co-vs-jay-krishna-arora-on-8-october-1975#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Maulavi Abdur Rub Firoze Ahmed &amp; Co vs Jay Krishna Arora on 8 October, 1975\"}]},{\"@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":"Maulavi Abdur Rub Firoze Ahmed &amp; Co vs Jay Krishna Arora on 8 October, 1975 - 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\/maulavi-abdur-rub-firoze-ahmed-co-vs-jay-krishna-arora-on-8-october-1975","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Maulavi Abdur Rub Firoze Ahmed &amp; Co vs Jay Krishna Arora on 8 October, 1975 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maulavi-abdur-rub-firoze-ahmed-co-vs-jay-krishna-arora-on-8-october-1975","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1975-10-07T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-03-23T22:55:28+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":"13 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maulavi-abdur-rub-firoze-ahmed-co-vs-jay-krishna-arora-on-8-october-1975#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maulavi-abdur-rub-firoze-ahmed-co-vs-jay-krishna-arora-on-8-october-1975"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Maulavi Abdur Rub Firoze Ahmed &amp; Co vs Jay Krishna Arora on 8 October, 1975","datePublished":"1975-10-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-03-23T22:55:28+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maulavi-abdur-rub-firoze-ahmed-co-vs-jay-krishna-arora-on-8-october-1975"},"wordCount":1932,"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\/maulavi-abdur-rub-firoze-ahmed-co-vs-jay-krishna-arora-on-8-october-1975#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maulavi-abdur-rub-firoze-ahmed-co-vs-jay-krishna-arora-on-8-october-1975","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maulavi-abdur-rub-firoze-ahmed-co-vs-jay-krishna-arora-on-8-october-1975","name":"Maulavi Abdur Rub Firoze Ahmed &amp; Co vs Jay Krishna Arora on 8 October, 1975 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1975-10-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-03-23T22:55:28+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maulavi-abdur-rub-firoze-ahmed-co-vs-jay-krishna-arora-on-8-october-1975#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maulavi-abdur-rub-firoze-ahmed-co-vs-jay-krishna-arora-on-8-october-1975"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maulavi-abdur-rub-firoze-ahmed-co-vs-jay-krishna-arora-on-8-october-1975#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Maulavi Abdur Rub Firoze Ahmed &amp; Co vs Jay Krishna Arora on 8 October, 1975"}]},{"@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\/211280","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=211280"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/211280\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=211280"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=211280"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=211280"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}