{"id":21226,"date":"2008-12-22T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-12-21T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-rajendran-vs-g-r-rajan-on-22-december-2008"},"modified":"2017-11-17T12:13:55","modified_gmt":"2017-11-17T06:43:55","slug":"s-rajendran-vs-g-r-rajan-on-22-december-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-rajendran-vs-g-r-rajan-on-22-december-2008","title":{"rendered":"S.Rajendran vs G.R.Rajan on 22 December, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">S.Rajendran vs G.R.Rajan on 22 December, 2008<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED: 22\/12\/2008\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.PALANIVELU\n\nC.R.P. (NPD) (MD) Nos.83 of 2006\n\nS.Rajendran\t\t\t\t\t...  Petitioner\n\t\t\nVs.\n\nG.R.Rajan\t\t\t\t\t...  Respondent\n\t\t\t\n\n\tCivil Revision Petition filed under Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings\n(Lease and Rent Control) Act, 18 of 1960 against the fair and executable order\ndated 23.08.2005 passed in R.C.A. No.55 of 2004 on the file of the Principal\nSubordinate Judge (Rent Control Appellate Authority), Madurai reversing the fair\nand executable order dated 04.02.2004 passed in R.C.O.P.No.151 of 1998 on the\nfile of the Additional District Munsif (Additional Rent Controller), Madurai\nTown.\n\n!For Petitioner   ... Mr.R.A.Mohanram\n^For Respondent   ... Mr.R.Subramanian\n\n\t\t* * *\n:ORDER\n<\/pre>\n<p>\tThe petitioner is the landlord.  He filed R.C.O.P.No.151 of 1998, on the<br \/>\nfile of the learned Rent Controller, Madurai Town, for eviction of respondent,<br \/>\nwho is the tenant, from the demised premises for the purpose of demolition and<br \/>\nreconstruction under Section 14 (1) (b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and<br \/>\nRent Control) Act, 1960.  The building belongs to the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t 2.\tIn the petition for eviction, he has alleged that the<br \/>\nrespondent\/tenant is running a tailoring shop in the demised premises which was<br \/>\ntaken by him on lease for Rs.300\/- as rent per month.  The building is situated<br \/>\nin a locality where the area is fast developing.  As the existing building is<br \/>\nold fashioned and not so strong to put up further construction, this Petitioner<br \/>\nintends to pull down the same and put up a pucca building with all modern<br \/>\namenities for his convenient residence  and also to construct commercial complex<br \/>\nin the remaining portion.  He has submitted the necessary building plan for<br \/>\napproval to the Madurai City Municipal Corporation.  He has got sufficient funds<br \/>\nto demolish the building and to construct a new building.  He has made all<br \/>\narrangements in this respect. On 08.05.1998, he sent a notice to the respondent<br \/>\nto vacate and surrender the building.  However, he did not send any reply.<br \/>\nHence, the petition may be allowed.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t3.\tIn the counter filed by the respondent\/tenant, it is alleged that it<br \/>\nis incorrect to state that the building is old fashioned and that the area in<br \/>\nwhich the building is situated is fast developing and that building has to be<br \/>\npulled down to put up a new building for his convenient residence and also to<br \/>\nmake a commercial complex.  The building is a new one which is in good and<br \/>\nstrong condition and it wears a new look.  The requirement of the petitioner is<br \/>\nnot at all bona fide one, but invented for the purpose of evicting the tenant.<br \/>\nHence, the petition has to be dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t4.\tThe learned Rent Controller allowed the application ordering<br \/>\neviction of the tenant within a period of two months.  Hence, he carried the<br \/>\nmatter in appeal in R.C.A. No.55 of 2006, on the file of the Principal<br \/>\nSubordinate Court, Madurai.  The Rent Control Appellate Authority allowed the<br \/>\nappeal, by setting aside the order of eviction by observing that the requirement<br \/>\nof the landlord is not bona fide.  Hence, the landlord is before this Court with<br \/>\nthis Civil Revision Petition.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t5.\tThe learned counsel for the petitioner Mr.R.A.Mohanram would<br \/>\nstrenuously contend that the pleadings made by this petitioner, the documents<br \/>\nproduced by him and also oral testimonies adduced on his behalf, would amply<br \/>\nshow that he bona fide requires the building for demolition and re-construction<br \/>\nand the converse findings of the Rent Control Appellate Authority are not<br \/>\nsustainable.  He further submits that even though the landlord produced a copy<br \/>\nof the plan which remained unapproved at the time of the enquiry in the eviction<br \/>\napplication, after the R.C.A. was over, he got the plan approved and that he has<br \/>\nalso increased the deposit of Rs.4,00,000\/- to Rs.5,00,000\/- for the purpose of<br \/>\ndemolition and re-construction.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t6.\tOn the contrary, the learned counsel for the respondent\/tenant<br \/>\nMr.R.Subramanian would submit that the landlord has miserably failed to<br \/>\nestablish that he bona fide requires the buildings for the purpose of demolition<br \/>\nand re-construction, that he did not produce the approved plan before the Rent<br \/>\nController, that he had not shown sufficient means for demolition and<br \/>\nreconstruction and that the observations made by the Rent Control Appellate<br \/>\nAuthority need not be disturbed.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t7.\tBefore entering into discussion in this case, it is incumbent upon<br \/>\nthis Court to refer and follow the dictum laid down by the Constitution Bench of<br \/>\nthe Hon&#8217;ble Supreme Court in a decision in <a href=\"\/doc\/1358436\/\">Vijay Singh and others V.<br \/>\nVijayalakshmi Ammal<\/a> reported in 1997 1 L.W. 218 = 1996 (2) CTC 586, wherein<br \/>\nTheir Lordships, after referring to various judgments of the Court, formulated<br \/>\nthe following principles before making observation in favour of the landlord<br \/>\nwhich are as follows:\n<\/p>\n<p>\t&#8220;For recording a finding that requirement for demolition was bona fide,<br \/>\nthe Rent Controller has to take into account: (1) bona fide intention of the<br \/>\nlandlord far from the sole object only to get rid of the tenants; (2) the age<br \/>\nand condition of the building; (3) the financial position of the landlord to<br \/>\ndemolish and errect a new building according to the statutory requirement of the<br \/>\nAct.  These are some of the illustrative factors which have to be taken into<br \/>\nconsideration before an order is passed under S.14 (1) (b).  No court can fix<br \/>\nany limit in respect of the age and condition of the building.  That factor has<br \/>\nto be taken into consideration along with other factors and then a conclusion<br \/>\none way or the other has to be arrived at by the Rent Controller.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>\t8.\tAs far as the first condition is concerned,  there should not be any<br \/>\nintention on the part of the landlord to evict the tenants from the building<br \/>\nowned by him by projecting a false claim before the Court, secondly, the age and<br \/>\ncondition of the building has to be assessed by the Court and thirdly, the<br \/>\nlandlord has to establish his financial position for demolition and<br \/>\nreconstruction.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t9.\tAs far as the age and condition of the building are concerned, it is<br \/>\nstated in the eviction petition that the building is 30 years old and in the<br \/>\ncounter it has been denied.  No petition for appointment of an Advocate<br \/>\nCommissioner has been taken out before the Rent Controller to note down the<br \/>\ncondition of the building.  In this regard, the decision of the Hon&#8217;ble Supreme<br \/>\nCourt as to the condition of the building in  <a href=\"\/doc\/87180\/\">P.S.Pareed Kaka and Others V.<br \/>\nShafee Ahmed Saheb<\/a> reported in 2004 (3) L.W. 754 is relevant in which Their<br \/>\nLordships have held that even if the building is in good condition, if it is not<br \/>\nsuitable for the requirement of the landlord, he can always demolish a good<br \/>\nbuilding and put up a new building to suit his requirements and that it is not<br \/>\nnecessary for the landlord to prove that the condition of the building is such<br \/>\nthat it requires immediate demolition, particularly, when the premises is<br \/>\nrequired by him.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t10.\tAs far as the facts of the present case are concerned, even though<br \/>\nthere is no sufficient evidence on record as to the condition of the building,<br \/>\nstill the intention of the landlord has to be gathered from the materials<br \/>\navailable from the case, as per the decision  of the Hon&#8217;ble Supreme Court and<br \/>\nwhile such exercise is undertaken by this Court, it appears that he is bona fide<br \/>\nrequiring the building on that account.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t11.\tAnother point in this regard is about the production of the approved<br \/>\nplan for the new building and much was stated about this before this Court.  The<br \/>\npetitioner produced a copy of the unapproved plan before the learned Rent<br \/>\nController to show that he has taken steps to get the same approved from the<br \/>\nMunicipal Corporation, Madurai and that the same was pending for approval.  It<br \/>\nhas to be noted that till the R.C.A was disposed of, the approval was not<br \/>\naccorded to the petitioner.  But it appears that only on 04.11.2005 the approval<br \/>\nwas granted by the Madurai Corporation and earlier to which on 22.08.2005 itself<br \/>\nthe R.C.A. was disposed of.  In this connection, the learned counsel for the<br \/>\nrespondent would argue in vehemence that since the petitioner has not obtained<br \/>\nthe approved plan from the authorities, if the approval was obtained on a<br \/>\nsubsequent occasion would not cure the irregularities and on this count the<br \/>\nlandlord has to be non-suited for the relief.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t12.\tThis Court is not in acceptance with the contention of the learned<br \/>\ncounsel for the respondent as Hon&#8217;ble Supreme Court in <a href=\"\/doc\/341977\/\">Harrington House School<br \/>\nV. S.M.Ispahani and<\/a> another reported in 2002-4-L.W. 639, has categorically held<br \/>\nthat even though the approved plan was not produced at the time of filing of<br \/>\neviction application, still if he shows that he has taken steps to get the<br \/>\napproval of the same, his claim could be considered.  Their Lordships have held<br \/>\nas follows:\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;The decree as passed by the High Court is sustained but it is directed that the<br \/>\nlandlords shall submit the plans of reconstruction for the approval of the local<br \/>\nauthority.  Only on the plans being sanctioned by the local authority the decree<br \/>\nfor eviction shall be available for execution.  Such sanctioned or approved<br \/>\nplans shall be produced before the Executing Court whereupon the Executing Court<br \/>\nshall allow a reasonable time to the tenant for vacating the property and<br \/>\ndelivering possession to the landlord-decreeholders.  Till then the tenant shall<br \/>\nremain liable to pay charges for use and occupation of the suit premises at the<br \/>\nsame rate at which they are being paid.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>\t13.\tEven though the landlord failed to produce the approved plan before<br \/>\nthe Rent Controller or the Rent Control Appellate Authority, the Supreme Court<br \/>\nfound that he was ready with the plan for the proposed reconstruction and that<br \/>\nwas not submitted to the Municipal authority till the disposal of the matter by<br \/>\nthe Supreme Court and while concluding the matter, it is held that the eviction<br \/>\norder shall not be operative till he produces the approved plan before the<br \/>\nexecuting Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t14.\tFollowing the principles laid down by the Supreme Court as<br \/>\naforementioned, it has to be held that even though the landlord did not produce<br \/>\nthe plan approved by the Corporation of Madurai, he having furnished the copy of<br \/>\nthe unapproved plan by saying that he has taken steps to get the same approved,<br \/>\nit is enough to satisfy the requirements and a rider has to be attached in the<br \/>\neviction order that the eviction order shall be executed on production of the<br \/>\napproved plan by the landlord.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t15.\tAs regards the means possessed by the landlord, both the learned<br \/>\ncounsel for the party would claim that the pleadings and oral evidence are in<br \/>\ntheir favour.  Firstly, in the eviction petition, the petitioner has<br \/>\nspecifically alleged that he has got sufficient funds to pull down the building<br \/>\nand also to put up a pucca construction.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t16.\tAdverting to the oral evidence on record in this regard, the<br \/>\npetitioner, as P.W.1, would depose that he is having sufficient financial<br \/>\ncapacity to construct a new building.  In the cross-examination, the said<br \/>\nevidence was not specifically denied, but some questions have been put to him to<br \/>\nthe effect that he did not mention in the petition that he has given sufficient<br \/>\namount to his brother and that he has also not deposited any amount in the bank.<br \/>\nThe above said questions and answers would not show that the evidence in the<br \/>\nchief-examination as to his possession of funds is categorically denied in the<br \/>\ncross-examination.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t17.\tThe learned counsel for the petitioner would state that the<br \/>\npetitioner was working in the Electricity Board at the time of the filing of the<br \/>\neviction petition and was drawing Rs.7,000\/- per month and that since he was<br \/>\nabout to retire, he would get a sizeable amount.  He examined P.W.2, his clerk,<br \/>\nwho would say that by means of Ex.A5 and A6, it could be shown that the<br \/>\npetitioner deposited a sum of Rs.4,00,000\/- in National Plywood Agency and Neso<br \/>\nPlywood Agency.  In fact both the Ex.A5 and A6, the communication received from<br \/>\nthe above said agencies, inform about the accrual of interest for the deposit.<br \/>\nThe respondent, in his chief examination as R.W.1 has not specifically denied<br \/>\nthat the landlord did not have the means for the purpose. He says that it does<br \/>\nnot appear to him that the petitioner is having means (kDjhuh; Bfhhpago trjp<br \/>\nnUg;gjhfj; bjhpatpy;iy). In the cross-examination, it has been elucidated to him<br \/>\nthat sufficient means is available with the landlord. Even though the petitioner<br \/>\nissued a notice earlier to the filing of the eviction application stating that<br \/>\nhe has got sufficient means, in the cross-examination, RW1 says that he did not<br \/>\ndeny the fact in his reply notice.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t18.\tThe cumulative effect of the above said materials would show that<br \/>\nthe petitioner has got means and all the above said particulars also warrant<br \/>\nsuch a finding.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t19.\tSince the requirement of the landlord has been found to be bona<br \/>\nfide, the necessary corollary would be that there is no mala fide intention on<br \/>\nhis part to evict the tenant by crooked means.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t20.\tHaving regard to the above said circumstances, this Court is of the<br \/>\nconsidered view that the petitioner has clearly established his bona fide<br \/>\nrequirement and hence, the order passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority<br \/>\nis not sustainable.  It has to be set aside and it is accordingly set aside.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t21.\tIn the result, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed with costs,<br \/>\ndirecting the respondent to vacate the demised premises within a period of two<br \/>\nmonths from the date of receipt of copy of this order.  It is also directed that<br \/>\nthe petitioner shall produce the approved plan before the executing Court along<br \/>\nwith the Execution Petition for delivery.\n<\/p>\n<p>srm\/vsn<\/p>\n<p>To<br \/>\nThe Additional District Munsif<br \/>\n (Additional Rent Controller),<br \/>\nMadurai.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court S.Rajendran vs G.R.Rajan on 22 December, 2008 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 22\/12\/2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.PALANIVELU C.R.P. (NPD) (MD) Nos.83 of 2006 S.Rajendran &#8230; Petitioner Vs. G.R.Rajan &#8230; Respondent Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, [&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":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-21226","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.0 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>S.Rajendran vs G.R.Rajan on 22 December, 2008 - 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\/s-rajendran-vs-g-r-rajan-on-22-december-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"S.Rajendran vs G.R.Rajan on 22 December, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-rajendran-vs-g-r-rajan-on-22-december-2008\" \/>\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=\"2008-12-21T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-11-17T06:43:55+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=\"12 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-rajendran-vs-g-r-rajan-on-22-december-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-rajendran-vs-g-r-rajan-on-22-december-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"S.Rajendran vs G.R.Rajan on 22 December, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-12-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-11-17T06:43:55+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-rajendran-vs-g-r-rajan-on-22-december-2008\"},\"wordCount\":2223,\"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\/s-rajendran-vs-g-r-rajan-on-22-december-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-rajendran-vs-g-r-rajan-on-22-december-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-rajendran-vs-g-r-rajan-on-22-december-2008\",\"name\":\"S.Rajendran vs G.R.Rajan on 22 December, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-12-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-11-17T06:43:55+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-rajendran-vs-g-r-rajan-on-22-december-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-rajendran-vs-g-r-rajan-on-22-december-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-rajendran-vs-g-r-rajan-on-22-december-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"S.Rajendran vs G.R.Rajan on 22 December, 2008\"}]},{\"@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":"S.Rajendran vs G.R.Rajan on 22 December, 2008 - 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\/s-rajendran-vs-g-r-rajan-on-22-december-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"S.Rajendran vs G.R.Rajan on 22 December, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-rajendran-vs-g-r-rajan-on-22-december-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-12-21T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-11-17T06:43:55+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":"12 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-rajendran-vs-g-r-rajan-on-22-december-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-rajendran-vs-g-r-rajan-on-22-december-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"S.Rajendran vs G.R.Rajan on 22 December, 2008","datePublished":"2008-12-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-11-17T06:43:55+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-rajendran-vs-g-r-rajan-on-22-december-2008"},"wordCount":2223,"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\/s-rajendran-vs-g-r-rajan-on-22-december-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-rajendran-vs-g-r-rajan-on-22-december-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-rajendran-vs-g-r-rajan-on-22-december-2008","name":"S.Rajendran vs G.R.Rajan on 22 December, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-12-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-11-17T06:43:55+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-rajendran-vs-g-r-rajan-on-22-december-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-rajendran-vs-g-r-rajan-on-22-december-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-rajendran-vs-g-r-rajan-on-22-december-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"S.Rajendran vs G.R.Rajan on 22 December, 2008"}]},{"@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\/21226","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=21226"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/21226\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=21226"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=21226"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=21226"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}