{"id":21355,"date":"2000-03-11T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2000-03-10T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kamal-nayan-and-anr-vs-hem-parkash-on-11-march-2000"},"modified":"2018-10-30T11:26:55","modified_gmt":"2018-10-30T05:56:55","slug":"kamal-nayan-and-anr-vs-hem-parkash-on-11-march-2000","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kamal-nayan-and-anr-vs-hem-parkash-on-11-march-2000","title":{"rendered":"Kamal Nayan And Anr. vs Hem Parkash on 11 March, 2000"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Delhi High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Kamal Nayan And Anr. vs Hem Parkash on 11 March, 2000<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: M B Lokur<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: M B Lokur<\/div>\n<\/p>\n<pre><\/pre>\n<p>JUDGMENT<\/p>\n<p> Madan B. Lokur, J. <\/p>\n<p> 1. The  Appellants  are aggrieved by an  order  dated<br \/>\n 29th  March, 1997 whereby their first appeal was  dismissed<br \/>\n by the learned Additional Rent Control Tribunal.\n<\/p>\n<p> 2. The  Respondent had filed a petition for  eviction<br \/>\n of  the  Appellants on the ground that Appellant  No.1  had<br \/>\n sub-let  the  suit  premises  to Appellant  No.2.   It  was<br \/>\n contended  that in view of this, the Appellants were liable<br \/>\n to  be  evicted under the provisions of Clause (b)  of  the<br \/>\n proviso  to  Section 14(1) of the Delhi Rent  Control  Act,<br \/>\n 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).\n<\/p>\n<p> 3. Both  the  Courts  below  found  that  a  case  of<br \/>\n sub-letting  had been made out against the Appellants  and,<br \/>\n therefore,  an  eviction  decree  was  passed  against  the<br \/>\n Appellants.\n<\/p>\n<p> 4. The  suit premises were taken on rent by Appellant<br \/>\n No.1   (since  deceased)  sometime   in   December,   1978.<br \/>\n According to the Respondent, in January 1979 Appellant No.1<br \/>\n informed  him  that  he was the sole  proprietor  of  Sigma<br \/>\n Electronics.  He requested that the rent receipts be issued<br \/>\n in the name of Sigma Electronics.\n<\/p>\n<p> 5. Sometime  towards  the end of 1982 the  Respondent<br \/>\n saw  some  other  persons conducting business in  the  suit<br \/>\n premises  and came to know that Appellant No.1 had  nothing<br \/>\n to  do  with  Sigma Electronics, which  was  allegedly  his<br \/>\n sub-tenant.   Accordingly,  he filed an  eviction  petition<br \/>\n against the Appellants.\n<\/p>\n<p> 6. It was the contention of the Appellants that Sigma<br \/>\n Electronics  was the tenant in the suit premises and in the<br \/>\n alternative,  both  the  Appellants were tenants.   It  was<br \/>\n alleged  that  Sigma Electronics was owned by the  wife  of<br \/>\n Appellant No.1 and that Appellant No.1 was working in Sigma<br \/>\n Electronics as its Manager.\n<\/p>\n<p> 7. Both  the Courts below disbelieved the Appellants.<br \/>\n It was held that Appellant No.1 was in fact carrying on his<br \/>\n business  at some other place in the name and style of  M\/s<br \/>\n Spectrum Electronics.\n<\/p>\n<p> 8. Learned  counsel  for  the   parties  made   their<br \/>\n submissions  on  8th  November,  2000  when  judgment  was<br \/>\n reserved.\n<\/p>\n<p> 9. Learned  counsel for the Appellants contended that<br \/>\n for almost 3 years Appellant No.1 issued cheques drawn from<br \/>\n the  account of Sigma Electronics and the Respondent issued<br \/>\n rent  receipts  in  favor of Sigma  Electronics.   It  was<br \/>\n contended  that  now the Respondent cannot turn around  and<br \/>\n say that Sigma Electronics is not his tenant.\n<\/p>\n<p> 10. It  does appear that the Respondent was  extremely<br \/>\n naive  in  believing  Appellant No.1 that he was  the  sole<br \/>\n proprietor  of  Sigma  Electronics and, therefore,  on  the<br \/>\n request of Appellant No.1 issued rent receipts in favor of<br \/>\n Sigma Electronics.  Later on, however, he came to know that<br \/>\n someone  else was carrying on business in the suit premises<br \/>\n and  that  Appellant  No.1  had nothing to  do  with  Sigma<br \/>\n Electronics.   He, therefore, stopped issuing rent receipts<br \/>\n in  favor  of  Sigma Electronics and  began  issuing  rent<br \/>\n receipts  in favor of Appellant No.1.  It appears from the<br \/>\n record  that  Appellant  No.1 did not object  to  the  rent<br \/>\n receipts  being drawn out in his favor from 1983  onwards.<br \/>\n This being so, Appellant No.1 acknowledged the fact that he<br \/>\n alone  was  the  tenant  of  the  suit  premises.   Indeed,<br \/>\n Appellant  No.1 cannot get out of the fact that only he was<br \/>\n the tenant in the suit premises because he had entered into<br \/>\n a  written agreement with the Respondent on 17th  December,<br \/>\n 1978 to this effect.\n<\/p>\n<p> 11. Consequently,  I am of the view that in the  facts<br \/>\n of  this case, merely because for some time, rent  receipts<br \/>\n were  made  out  in the name of Sigma  Electronics  on  the<br \/>\n request  of  Appellant  No.1, it does not mean  that  Sigma<br \/>\n Electronics was the tenant.\n<\/p>\n<p> 12. Learned  counsel for the Appellants submitted that<br \/>\n the Respondent had admitted in his statement that Appellant<br \/>\n No.1 used to sit in the suit premises.  This fact by itself<br \/>\n does not establish that Appellant No.1 had any control over<br \/>\n the  suit  premises.   There is nothing on  the  record  to<br \/>\n indicate  the  constitution  of   Sigma  Electronics.    No<br \/>\n document was produced by Appellant No.1 or his wife to show<br \/>\n how  they were concerned with Sigma Electronics.  In  fact,<br \/>\n the  wife of Appellant No.1 who was said to be the owner of<br \/>\n Sigma  Electronics  did  not even enter  the  witness  box.<br \/>\n Appellant  No.1  who claimed to be working as a Manager  in<br \/>\n Sigma  Electronics did not produce any document in  support<br \/>\n of his contention.\n<\/p>\n<p> 13. Even  if  Appellant  No.1 was a Manager  in  Sigma<br \/>\n Electronics,  it  really means nothing &#8211; it does  not  show<br \/>\n that  he exercised control over the suit premises.  Control<br \/>\n over   the  suit  premises  was  in  the  hands  of   Sigma<br \/>\n Electronics, his alleged employer.\n<\/p>\n<p> 14. It  was  then  contended   that  after  all  Sigma<br \/>\n Electronics  was  owned by the wife of Appellant No.1  and,<br \/>\n therefore, there can be no case of subletting by him to his<br \/>\n wife.   Reliance  in  this  regard   was  placed  on   Smt.<br \/>\n Krishnawanti  Vs.   Hans Raj, 1979 ALL India  Rent  Control<br \/>\n Journal  164.   In that case, the facts were  the  reverse,<br \/>\n namely that the tenant therein was the wife and her husband<br \/>\n was  carrying on the business of a chemist in the shop with<br \/>\n occasional  help  from his wife.  The Supreme Court was  of<br \/>\n the  view that the factual commonsense inference in such  a<br \/>\n case  would  be  that  the wife had  not  sublet  the  suit<br \/>\n premises to her husband.\n<\/p>\n<p> 15. Unfortunately, however, there is nothing on record<br \/>\n in  this  case  to suggest that the business  in  the  suit<br \/>\n premises  was  being carried out by the wife  of  Appellant<br \/>\n No.1.   It was the case of the Appellants that business was<br \/>\n being carried on in the suit premises by Sigma Electronics.<br \/>\n The   constitution  of  the   Sigma  Electronics  was   not<br \/>\n disclosed.   The  wife of Appellant No.1 did not enter  the<br \/>\n witness  box  to  say that she was the sole  proprietor  of<br \/>\n Sigma  Electronics  and that she was carrying  on  business<br \/>\n with  the  help  of  Appellant No.1  as  Manager  of  Sigma<br \/>\n Electronics.   Necessary evidence in this case is  lacking.<br \/>\n Therefore,  Smt.Krishnawanti does not apply to the facts of<br \/>\n this case.\n<\/p>\n<p> 16. Learned  counsel for the Appellants contended that<br \/>\n since  the Courts below have ignored important evidence  on<br \/>\n record,  this  Court  can  always set  aside  a  concurrent<br \/>\n finding  of  fact.  Reliance in this regard was  placed  on<br \/>\n Smt.  Sonawati and Ors.  Vs.  Sri Ram and Anr., .\n<\/p>\n<p> 17. With  respect,  it is not correct to say that  the<br \/>\n Courts  below have ignored any material evidence on record.<br \/>\n Two important facts that learned counsel for the Appellants<br \/>\n relied  upon and which, according to him, were ignored  are<br \/>\n that  the Respondent issued rent receipts to the Appellants<br \/>\n in  the  name of Sigma Electronics and that  payments  were<br \/>\n made  to  the  Respondent by cheques drawn in the  name  of<br \/>\n Sigma Electronics.  Both these aspects have been considered<br \/>\n by the learned Additional Rent Controller as well as by the<br \/>\n learned Additional Rent Control Tribunal.\n<\/p>\n<p> 18. It  was  also contended that the statement of  the<br \/>\n Respondent  that  he used to see Appellant No.1 sitting  in<br \/>\n the  suit premises was not given due importance.  It is not<br \/>\n for  this  Court to weigh the evidence.  The assessment  of<br \/>\n the  evidence has already been done by the Courts below and<br \/>\n they  have come to the conclusion that the mere presence of<br \/>\n Appellant  No.1 in the suit premises establishes, at  best,<br \/>\n his  claim  that he was the Manager of  Sigma  Electronics.<br \/>\n The  mere  presence of Appellant No.1 in the suit  premises<br \/>\n does  not  establish  that Sigma Electronics  was  not  the<br \/>\n sub-tenant of Appellant No.1 or that Appellant No.1 had not<br \/>\n parted  with  possession of the suit premises in favor  of<br \/>\n Sigma Electronics.\n<\/p>\n<p> 19. In  view  of the above, I am of the  opinion  that<br \/>\n both the Courts below have rightly held that Appellant No.1<br \/>\n had  sublet the suit premises to Sigma Electronics and  had<br \/>\n parted  with  possession of the suit premises in favor  of<br \/>\n Sigma Electronics.  The ingredients of provisions of Clause\n<\/p>\n<p> (b)  of  the proviso to Section 14(1) of the Act have  been<br \/>\n fully met.\n<\/p>\n<p> 20. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.  No costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Delhi High Court Kamal Nayan And Anr. vs Hem Parkash on 11 March, 2000 Author: M B Lokur Bench: M B Lokur JUDGMENT Madan B. Lokur, J. 1. The Appellants are aggrieved by an order dated 29th March, 1997 whereby their first appeal was dismissed by the learned Additional Rent Control Tribunal. 2. The Respondent [&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":[14,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-21355","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-delhi-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Kamal Nayan And Anr. vs Hem Parkash on 11 March, 2000 - 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\/kamal-nayan-and-anr-vs-hem-parkash-on-11-march-2000\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Kamal Nayan And Anr. vs Hem Parkash on 11 March, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kamal-nayan-and-anr-vs-hem-parkash-on-11-march-2000\" \/>\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=\"2000-03-10T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-10-30T05:56:55+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=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kamal-nayan-and-anr-vs-hem-parkash-on-11-march-2000#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kamal-nayan-and-anr-vs-hem-parkash-on-11-march-2000\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Kamal Nayan And Anr. vs Hem Parkash on 11 March, 2000\",\"datePublished\":\"2000-03-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-10-30T05:56:55+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kamal-nayan-and-anr-vs-hem-parkash-on-11-march-2000\"},\"wordCount\":1322,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Delhi High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kamal-nayan-and-anr-vs-hem-parkash-on-11-march-2000#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kamal-nayan-and-anr-vs-hem-parkash-on-11-march-2000\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kamal-nayan-and-anr-vs-hem-parkash-on-11-march-2000\",\"name\":\"Kamal Nayan And Anr. vs Hem Parkash on 11 March, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2000-03-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-10-30T05:56:55+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kamal-nayan-and-anr-vs-hem-parkash-on-11-march-2000#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kamal-nayan-and-anr-vs-hem-parkash-on-11-march-2000\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kamal-nayan-and-anr-vs-hem-parkash-on-11-march-2000#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Kamal Nayan And Anr. vs Hem Parkash on 11 March, 2000\"}]},{\"@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":"Kamal Nayan And Anr. vs Hem Parkash on 11 March, 2000 - 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\/kamal-nayan-and-anr-vs-hem-parkash-on-11-march-2000","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Kamal Nayan And Anr. vs Hem Parkash on 11 March, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kamal-nayan-and-anr-vs-hem-parkash-on-11-march-2000","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2000-03-10T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-10-30T05:56:55+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":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kamal-nayan-and-anr-vs-hem-parkash-on-11-march-2000#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kamal-nayan-and-anr-vs-hem-parkash-on-11-march-2000"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Kamal Nayan And Anr. vs Hem Parkash on 11 March, 2000","datePublished":"2000-03-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-10-30T05:56:55+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kamal-nayan-and-anr-vs-hem-parkash-on-11-march-2000"},"wordCount":1322,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Delhi High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kamal-nayan-and-anr-vs-hem-parkash-on-11-march-2000#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kamal-nayan-and-anr-vs-hem-parkash-on-11-march-2000","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kamal-nayan-and-anr-vs-hem-parkash-on-11-march-2000","name":"Kamal Nayan And Anr. vs Hem Parkash on 11 March, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2000-03-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-10-30T05:56:55+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kamal-nayan-and-anr-vs-hem-parkash-on-11-march-2000#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kamal-nayan-and-anr-vs-hem-parkash-on-11-march-2000"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kamal-nayan-and-anr-vs-hem-parkash-on-11-march-2000#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Kamal Nayan And Anr. vs Hem Parkash on 11 March, 2000"}]},{"@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\/21355","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=21355"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/21355\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=21355"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=21355"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=21355"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}