{"id":219100,"date":"2008-05-30T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-05-29T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-t-jayavelu-vs-nisar-ahmed-on-30-may-2008"},"modified":"2014-05-05T13:15:38","modified_gmt":"2014-05-05T07:45:38","slug":"v-t-jayavelu-vs-nisar-ahmed-on-30-may-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-t-jayavelu-vs-nisar-ahmed-on-30-may-2008","title":{"rendered":"V T Jayavelu vs Nisar Ahmed on 30 May, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court<\/div>\n
V T Jayavelu vs Nisar Ahmed on 30 May, 2008<\/div>\n
Author: Subhash B.Adi<\/div>\n
,_.\n\u00a3E{\u00ab,\"AxK\ufb02'}\ufb01)\\\"\"-(M ' =\n\n5 \u00a39\n3 \/2\n\nIN THE HIGH comm' 09' KARNATAKA AT BANGALQRE\nDATED THIS THE 30TH DAY 0? MAY 2002:; A'\nBEFORE 4\"%'  } \nTHE H()N'BLE MR.JUS'I'lC_E..SU_BH\u00a3xSH\" \u00a7.\u00a7,;_\u00e9,Ij5'1:  Q  \nREGULAR FIRST APPEEH. xG. :,-Qz\u00e9z   }~ i' M\n\nclw R.F.A..CRO88 OBJECTI03 NO.6 \n\nin R.F.A.Nc. .'\u00a7@_[_2(\u00a703 *- \"_= V' \nBEIWEEN:   % \u00ab-\n\nSri.V.'I'.Jayavc1u   L\n\nS\/0 V.M.'f'hirugnana Chetty  '\n\nAged about 52 years   _  '\n\nNo.30, M.F.Na1'QnizavRoad V     ' \nShiv.-=.1jiNagar, B.AN\u00a7L\u00a2x1.QRE-i1_.\"' \"   \"  APPELLANT\n\n(By     \nSri.Ash-Q1:+N...Na3rak;'i:;,    \nS1i.K.R.:v_Sathy9;'\u00a7-.';ra1;I::3,, Ax 'V5.3 _ --\n\nSr'i.Nis2:f  2 \n\n Aged,a};>o1z't 53  V\n ' 'S;\/o L-ate Sinai}; Mahafjdbb\n R] at.  _10._, Laser Layout, Frazer Town\n'l3ANGALG\u00abREv3.,_  .. RESPONDENT\n\n(Bf As!:%i.s,1\u00e9_...Isz*Vii;5_;e\u00a3:b, Adv.)\n\nIn Cross Obiection No.6! 200'?\n\n  \n\n  \" ' ' 'Sri.;Nisar Ahmed\n Aged about 53 years\n'KS\/o Late Sheik Mahaboob, R\/at No.10\n\" Laser Layout, Frazer Town\n\nBANGALORE5. .. CROSS OBJECTOR\n\n[By Sn'.S.A.iVIujeeb, Adv.)\n\n\n\nAND:\n\nSri.V.'I'.Jayave1u\n\nS] 0 V.M.Thirugna:1a Cihetty\n\nAged about 52 years\n\nNo.30, M.F'.Na1*o11ha Road\n\nShivaji Nagar  \"   \" .  \nBANGALORE-1. .. R.}I*ISP__GN{)ENT   \n\nR.F.A.No.329\/ 2003 is \ufb01led under Secjtien 96'--ai1dv\u00a7}It1e;f' 41V, _j\nRule 1 of CPC agaixzst judgment and \"deeree 'dt. 1*3_.'lpas$ed \u00b0\nin e.s.No.15131\/1999 on the \ufb01le 03\" e1e'xxv:e..4ddV1.eity'; Ci'.ri1*\u00a7$a\nSessions Judge, Mayo Hall, Bailg\u00e9lqre (C\"CH-2O)V\u00e9ie\u00e91je'eing\"the stat\n\nfor ejeetment and for eempensaki\u00e9nw\/ltiamages.  -- -\n\nRFA Cr.Ob.No.6\/  in_\"lR.Fl.A.,\u00a7<5Q.l329\/ 2003 is \ufb01led under\nOrder 41 Rule 22 of  ai%-;sins--tf jxidgment and decree\ndt.13.12.2002 passed in O.'S,N%\u00a7;15131\/'1\u00a799_'_.on the \ufb01le of the\nXXVI Addl.City Civil 85,Seseim1s'_J12&ge,aMayo Hail, Bangalore\n(CCH--20), ta set 'aside the finding giveno\ufb01 issue No.3 \ufb01xing the\nrate of <iamsges..fo:5;iv:rm\u00a2g\ufb011l~ }i$\u20ac2_ ueeiipation of the premises\nat Rs.1500\/ wIvIi\u00e9\u00a711I11"a:nr1"d_i1\u00a7ect-,\u00bbthe court below :0 held an\nenquiry and \ufb01x dai:1ages'fof--wmng\ufb01,il use and occupation of the\npzemises 'a"fl'Rs,'V;iO,0O1G\/-lper moiiih fmm the date of \ufb01ling of the\n\nTheselllf\ufb01jpeal  Cibss Appeal having been heard and\nreserve(1~ for judgmem: 'and coming on for Pronouncement of\n\n . \ufb02dutlff\ufb01i\ufb01ilili\ufb01 L-'live day; t'c;e_\u00abf3o"u:rt deliverecl the follewing:\n\nJUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
 ~_ r’l.–.f’hls’l\u00a7s\u00bb.de:feiflda33t’s appeal against the judgment and decree<\/p>\n
V . da:e\u00a2i””13t%i:De5ember 2002 in e.s.No.15 131\/ 1999.<\/p>\n
 \u00bb AA  ‘l’l1e parses will be referred to as arrayed before the trial<\/p>\n
3. Respondent — plain\ufb01if sought for decree for eielivexy of<\/p>\n
: actual vacant possession of schedule property and for damages at<\/p>\n
Rs.10,{)OO\/– per month. W<\/p>\n
‘_I<\/p>\n
of the had \ufb01led<\/p>\n
4. Case plainti\ufb01’ was that, he
\nH.R.C.Nc>.10040\/1996 before the Additional Small Causes Judge
\nunder Section 21(1)(h], (1′) and (p) of the Karnataka Reat Con.t1o1<\/p>\n
Act [hexeinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for evietle:af.._ofVV the<\/p>\n
defendant. However, the said petitien was
\nthe provisions cf Section 31 of the Aunt and ;a’1s’o-~ 15:11.  _ <\/p>\n
decision of the Apex Court upholdingthe:  <\/p>\n
the rent of the schedule pmperijr ‘teas
\nwas let out for commercial   is   that the
\ntenancy of the defendant ‘legal netlce dated 3031
\nDecember 1993. The  by RPAI) and also<\/p>\n
certi\ufb01catevofv It is also alleged<\/p>\n
that. desjaite’   tenancy. the defendant had not<\/p>\n
vacated the    It is alleged that the cause of<\/p>\n
 ..actiozt\u00ab.\u00a7;aecrued is vathewgain\ufb01e to seek possession and also for<\/p>\n
“ydaziziages,  2 l’<\/p>\n
   resisted the suit by \ufb01ling wzitten statement<\/p>\n
 _ Tirfzterallfczg  the allegations made in the plain’: and alleged
\n   we is no valid termination of tenancy and fuxther alleged<\/p>\n
 __  tlae plaintiff is not entitled for compensation.<\/p>\n
6. The trial court based on the pleadings, framed the<\/p>\n
follcswing issues:\n<\/p>\n
W<\/p>\n
9<\/span><\/p>\n
4%.;\n<\/p>\n
-4..’<\/p>\n
1, Whether plain\ufb01\ufb01 proves that the defendant has been
\nhis tenani in respect of suit schedule property No.30,
\nM.F.Naronha Road, Russel Market, Square,
\nBangaiore, on a monthly rental of Rs. 600\/ -? _’ V   <\/p>\n
2. Whether the plainfi\ufb02’ has properly   _
\ntemmcy ofihe defendant?   L”  1<\/p>\n
3. Whether the piaintifffis entiiletiftti’ ihe
\nat whairate?\n<\/p>\n
4. Wheiherplainti\ufb01is enteieg; to  A<\/p>\n
5. Wlruzzt decree or order?\n<\/p>\n
7. The trial court  the e\ufb01ieeoee held that,
\nthe defenciant is   property on the
\nmonthly rent  \u00e9  j  “j–‘te*eaa1:icy has been vaiidly<\/p>\n
termsn’ ated    A<\/p>\n
s. ‘rm ;}”s4:’_1.t:CIr1.’1}g for the defendant submitted<\/p>\n
that, the suiufeieV%uotVVi11ei11teieL.\u20ac1b1e before the City Civil Court, as the<\/p>\n
‘docs Vziot _g:_ease to \ufb01e a tenant He relied on the<\/p>\n
 ‘.p1*o;\\%ieio1L${ of”See?;ion 31 of the Act and submitted that. since the<\/p>\n
rexitfh    Rs.5Gd]~ and premises being used for<\/p>\n
–eoz33n:'{ereie%1 p\ufb01\u00a7pose, I3aI’t–V of the Act is excluded and in respect<\/p>\n
H K   ‘e’.1i\u00bbothe’IV Farts, the Act is appiieable. The defendant continues<\/p>\n
.%.;;:o”<}5"e "\u00a7e11a11t even after the determination of a lease. if the
\nT  defendant continues to be tenant, the suit for possession before<\/p>\n
3 u U the Civil Court on the basis of termination notice is not<\/p>\n
(V<\/p>\n
\\s':;.\n<\/p>\n
.1<\/p>\n
-5-<\/span><\/p>\n
maintaizlable. He submitted that the Civil Court has no
\njurisdictian.\n<\/p>\n
9. He also submitted that, the question of jurisdiction can
\nbe raised at any stage of the proceedings i1::.c1ud.ij1ig_ in the
\nexecution proceedings. He further submitted eecree
\npassed by the Court is without jurisdiction    %{;r;ee_<\/p>\n
eye of law.\n<\/p>\n
10. In this regard. he relied one tieeisio\ufb01’ the A<\/p>\n
reported in AIR 1979 SC   mete:f’_:ei”\u00a7.V;4\u00a75fD;\u00a7\u00a3ANAPAL
\nCHETIZAR -vs- YESODAI eeeeeeeee; even if the
\n1eese is determined by   transfer of Propexty
\nAct, the tenant.ctm\ufb01nue;eVVte’  there cannot be any<\/p>\n
forfeitufe of teneiiv:’}!  cf law, the tenant becomes liable to<\/p>\n
be evicteei  t”e:\u20acfeitii:e–  into play only if the tenant has<\/p>\n
V inctztfzjed uthe V  to be evicted under the Act and not<\/p>\n
    submitted that, Section 3 ciause (r) of the Act<\/p>\n
I =\u00a3eeee\u00a3%;w\u00abemeh includes the tenant, who has eueered an<\/p>\n
_  ort1ei=._ ofevie\ufb01en. He further submitted that, even after the<\/p>\n
 of the tenancy, defendant continues to be a tenant<\/p>\n
A   such, Section 8 of the Karnataka Small Causes Courts Act,<\/p>\n
    read with Schedule provides exclusive juxisdietiexx to seek<\/p>\n
 ejeetment ef tenants and no other Couxt has got the jurisdiction.<\/p>\n
\\’i<\/p>\n
,5-\n<\/p>\n
In this Iegaxd, he relied on a decision of Division Bench of this
\nCourt reported in {LR 1984 Ker 1115 in the tn\u00e9ztter of<\/p>\n
B.S.GIR’IDHAR -vs- PJZSHETTY and submitted ttte.t;._31<\/p>\n
exempts the operation of Part–V deaiing with centre}  <\/p>\n
tenants in respect of non-Iesidentisi1W1j’re.:nises;’ 1$7:Iitose_V’n1onthI3’e’._ <\/p>\n
rent exceeds R3500\/–. The said   then
\nproviding exemptions from tltg  ‘V Act
\nrespect of such class of   id con\ufb01ned to
\nevictions and this is cleet  e~.:\u00a7itt_.)–sectio11 (2) of the
\nAct, which makes   Part:-HI of the Act
\ncontinue to    decision, he further
\nsubmitted”  the defendant is a tenant
\nor not  the decisicm of the Division Bench.<\/p>\n
He further  on anethetf’..’decision reported in 2001(4) KLJ 412<\/p>\n
 theuvngtatterxt”ef_____fEfFJ11@NI mrgarms, BANGALORE -vs~<\/p>\n
3_R;$.enet:4t;t?t1tt;teAND ANOTHER and eubeetttett that, the View of<\/p>\n
t1de.is followed ey the learned siegte Judge of this<\/p>\n
  submitted that, subsequently also, the learned
\naJLiVd’fg.e of this Court in a judgment reported in {LR 2002
\nL  in the matter of RAMESH P.sE’m ~–mvs- M.S.KRISHNA
\n but  & women has followed the said decision and has held<\/p>\n
 ” ” that, tenant eccupying non-msiden\ufb01al premises, tent of which<\/p>\n
exceeds Rs.509\/- continues to be a tenant even after the<\/p>\n
-7-<\/span><\/p>\n
determination of lease and is iiabie to pay rent and not damages.
\nHe further relied on another decision of this Court reported in ILR
\n2004 KAR 98 in the matter cf BANGALORE PR{;N_TING &
\nPUBLISHING CQLTD. ~–vs- SOUKAR TPREMNA7H.’s;s3V”siz\u00a7i\u00a7mitted<\/p>\n
that, suit for ejectment and suit for possession-‘siev <\/p>\n
suits; suit for ejectment is \ufb01led befQ:e”‘ihe\u00a2  .i_C?oin*t <\/p>\n
respect of cases to Which, Act is appiiicaiolej suit _Vfo-njpesz\u00e9ession is it<\/p>\n
\ufb01led before the Civil Court in  of is ‘net
\napplicable and the possession uiicier:.the.i\u00a7o1’di1ia1y law
\nbefore the ordinary  -..t}V:1e provisions of the
\nTransfer of P10i3\u00a23ft3’.__Act.:A””E~i’e*  this Court has held
\nthat. tenant:.eve1i   to be a tenant and
\ngovemei\u00e9i ‘by   Act.\n<\/p>\n
11.   of the jurisdiction issue. be relied<\/p>\n
 ‘~ ._Q\ufb01  of  Court reporteti in AIR 1954 SC 340 in<\/p>\n
 the’ iastief*sf-f{\ufb02*?;4IV SINGH AND omsss \u00ab~\u00abvs- CHAMAN PASWAN<\/p>\n
 submitted that, decree passed by a Court<\/p>\n
\ufb02 haviiigjiiiisdictiox1. is a nullity and that its invaiidity could be<\/p>\n
it i’  ‘iipu\u00e9veiiiencver and wherever it is sought to be enforced or relied\n<\/p>\n
–i  Iipgeiiiieven at the stage sf execution and in coiiateral proceedings.<\/p>\n
T   further submitted that, since the issue touches the jurisdiction<\/p>\n
A of the Court to pass the deems. it can he raises in this appeal. He<\/p>\n
relies on another decision of this Court reported in 1989(1) KLJ<\/p>\n
83 in the matter sf SHIVAMURTHLT MALLAYYA SWAMI ~113-
\nBQKHADEV UAMRANE and submitted that, this Court iiiterpre\ufb01ng
\nSection 9 of the Kamataka Small Cause Courts ‘that,<\/p>\n
no amount cf acquiescence, Waiver, consent,  lof.,ll1aiv,<\/p>\n
bona\ufb01des, goed \ufb02aith or any oe;;e:?’   Al<\/p>\n
jurisdiction on the Court.\n<\/p>\n
12. Per contra, learned    the p1ajnti\ufb02’
\nsubmitted that, Section  exelugfleeje conferred on
\nthe tenant from e7;ictioz1,__   Part-V of the Act
\ndeals with proteeti\u00a7;:h.’Vof Vlhbmeeviciion and if Part-V is
\nexelu\u00e9ed,    the Act and if there is
\nno     oee\ufb01 seek possessien against the
\ntenant  file .for.l_:f\u00a7eesession. The object of the Act is to<\/p>\n
protect the  even in cases of determination. of<\/p>\n
 ” _ it. is o\ufb01ly——under such circumstances, the tenant is<\/p>\n
 31 cf the Act does not protect the tenant of<\/p>\n
ne12\u00a7feeide11ti;a\u00a71..e:;p1emises, having monthly rent of more than<\/p>\n
\/ -3″ submitted that, in respect of such tenants, the only<\/p>\n
V’  to the lesser or the landlord is to seek detennination<\/p>\n
‘ of and he further submitted that, lease is determined in this<\/p>\n
” eese. Once the lease is determined, the oeeupa\ufb01on of the<\/p>\n
defendant becomes wrongful oeeupatiien and is iiabie to pay the<\/p>\n
-9-<\/span><\/p>\n
damages. In such circzuxiistances. it is only the Civil Court, which<\/p>\n
has got jurisdiction to pass decree for possession and damages.<\/p>\n
13. He relied on Section 801′ the Kamataka  Cause<\/p>\n
Courts Act and submitted that the Sinai}  no<\/p>\n
jurisdiction to pass decree for possession. in  <\/p>\n
on the Scheduie and pointed out thatjthe    has <\/p>\n
no juxisdiction to award damages.  iiiifther ist:}o1nittet1:”t11st,._the it i<\/p>\n
notice of termination is issued’i.i1’der S\u00e9ci:io:i_  Transfer
\nof Property Act and once the leaseis–dete::’m.i1ied,..1:he status of the
\ndefendant becomes  \ufb02fl\ufb01lfi is no protection<\/p>\n
under the pI’0\\{‘$2it)I1S of  “of the Act is excluded<\/p>\n
and   is iiomiprotectiozi under the Act and if
\nthe lease _is %%de:\u00ab.:1i4i;:;i;m;’d status of the tenant cannot be<\/p>\n
relegated tou”t}iatV\u00bbof \u00a31  and his position remains as a<\/p>\n
.  o\ufb01esp\u00e9isser ‘and  that the suit is maintainable and the<\/p>\n
   court beiow does not call for interference.<\/p>\n
 14:.\u00ab.I3;’t”t13,e light of the contentions raised by both the parties,<\/p>\n
 the  that arises for consideration in this appeal is:<\/p>\n
it  “as to whether the Civil Court has jurisdiction to grant<\/p>\n
decree for possession and damages in respect of non-
\nresidential premises having rent more than Rs.500}’- to<\/p>\n
which Part-Vof the Act is not applicable?”<\/p>\n
}
\n\\<\/p>\n
r.e~”\/<\/p>\n
I<\/p>\n
.19-\n<\/p>\n
15. it is very unfortunate case, a landlord \ufb01les an eviction
\nili\ufb01\ufb01tioll under Section 21 of the Act on the basis of the judgment
\nof this Court striking the provisions of Section 31 of the Act.
\nWhen the evicnon pe\ufb01tion was pending, the Apex Courft”nph<)1ds
\nthe validity of Section 31 of the Act. In View of , the
\nplam\ufb01\ufb02 fiies; the present suit for possession.
\ndecreed the suit for possession.  ;\n<\/p>\n
issue of jurtsdic\ufb01on before the trial  A’  t 2 Vt  H<\/p>\n
16. in this appeal,  ‘”2:\n<\/p>\n
gmund of jurisdiction ax1c\u00a7.__}f1as,vAieIieei’;_g’t1e judgments of Apex
\nCourt as well as this   in the aznatter of<\/p>\n
V\ufb02hanapal Chettiz:tf”3_   that, terrnination of<\/p>\n
tenancy  of the”‘f’rensfer of Property Act is not
\nnecesSa:t3vf_,in of  tenant, Whose tenancy is<\/p>\n
protected  the ‘Act the e\ufb01ux of time or detenninatzion<\/p>\n
 vof  and 1tnS\u00abhe1{i’ that, tenant becomes liabie to be evicted<\/p>\n
not  into play only if he has incurred the liability to<\/p>\n
be ‘evicted 1in7ri*er?the provisions of the Act and not otherwise.<\/p>\n
17Urh\u00a2 Apex Court in the said judgment has held that, in<\/p>\n
   of statutory tenant, whose rights are pmtected by the<\/p>\n
  statnte, there is no requirement of terminating the<\/p>\n
 , uttktenancy. The Division Bench of this Court in B.S.Gin’dhar’s case<\/p>\n
,,\u00a7,w+~t,e\/%<\/p>\n
-;;-\n<\/p>\n
(supra), has held that, in respect of tenant of 11031-I’\u20acSidCI\ufb02ial
\nbuilding having rent of more than RS500] –, the Part–V_ of the Act<\/p>\n
is not applicable, but does not exclude the other Parts of the”-Act<\/p>\n
and the tenant continues to be a tenant and other ..<\/p>\n
continue to apply.\n<\/p>\n
18. On interpretation of the provisiohsliofthe <\/p>\n
de\ufb01nition of ‘tenant’ as de\ufb01ned under se\u00a2eog_ii3(r). iltsge mvisianji ‘<\/p>\n
Bench of this Court has held that, tenaiit’-,continn.es”teiiisnt
\neven after termination of thevte1.iaacy”:i11.:lf’liis,. imssessionirviil not
\nbecome unlawful and is liable tapaylth\u00e9 ..g’g:_eed. The saicl<\/p>\n
View is fcllowed by  _Cotii’t  st,bs\u00a2quen:., Vdecision in the<\/p>\n
matter of “;l?lE;\u00e9TRfiS::i{stzp:*a}’land RAMESH P.s.e:rH
\n(supra). The    is that, Section 31 only
\nexcludes F’art–V    not exclude other parts of the
\nAct… ‘_vThev_\u00bb\u00bbclelihition of  under Section 3(1j of the Act<\/p>\n
i:ecl1;\u00e9es”evex1., te:1.s3,_1t’– against whom the order of eviction is passed<\/p>\n
  and hes  that, for all purposes, even after evicticn
\nicrder, the continues to be tenant till evicted and is liable to<\/p>\n
4. react  not damages.\n<\/p>\n
   Under the Kamaiaka Small Cause Courts Act, the<\/p>\n
    is conferred on the Small Causes Comt only in<\/p>\n
tespect of cases arising under Clause-4 of the Schedule,<\/p>\n
-13.\n<\/p>\n
inasmuch as suii for ejeemxent where the preperty has been lei;<\/p>\n
out under a lease er permitted to be occupied by a whiten<\/p>\n
i;t:.s1:rument or orally, the Small Causes Court would be ~ 3<\/p>\n
to take cognizance of a suit for the rent of the prope\ufb01ityv   H<\/p>\n
such cases, the only substantial issue Wotfildhbe’, :;_1ss’–.&to.;*.=.{IAi e*z’i;e1~’ tihexl <\/p>\n
lease has been dete13::::1′;a::ed by e\ufb01iux Qf  ”<\/p>\n
has been \u00e9etermined by a netice    Ehe
\ntime being in force. By  of&,p1e;fi_sieiz3. of’ Section} 8 read
\nwith Schedule, it excludes the   suits for
\npossession, but it ineizjeies   the tenant
\nand also includes  ‘  vaiue does not
\nexceed Rs. 25\u00a7{)UG’;~  ‘ ; g V<\/p>\n
20. Thelvvs\ufb01nejelaf  befcsre this Court
\nin the deeisign zegsorge\u00e9.  Bz\u00a7z\u00a5GALoRE PRINTING & PUBLISHING
\n    on interpretation of the provisions<\/p>\n
of   (1). (:2) and Section 9 of the Karnataka<\/p>\n
 e…s,.-ma   read with Schedule has held that, an
\n_ ‘_1e._1″:eepf;ion  out in Ciause (4) of the Schedule i.e., in cases
\n  AAf6r'<-ejeeelnent' or Where the property has been let under a<\/p>\n
  ea';  ;'}e:Armitteci to be occupied by a written instrument or
\n   .  only the Court of Sma\ufb01 Causes would be eompeteet to<\/p>\n
  t;.;:3<e cognizance of 'suit fer ejectment'. it makes distinction<\/p>\n
between the Suits for ejeetxnent and suits for possession. Though<\/p>\n
(9%\/?\u00ab<\/p>\n
.33-\n<\/p>\n
Smaii Causes Comte’ juxisdiction is excluded, but in case of suit<\/p>\n
for ejecment, the jurisdiction is confcned on it. Whcn’:.5,__”the<\/p>\n
transac\ufb01on is governed by the provisions: of the  v;r’.;-ft <\/p>\n
Pmperty Act and the tenancy is terminated and the.  cot’   b <\/p>\n
governed by the provisions of the Act, {#16  ‘has   <\/p>\n
before the regular Civil Court, where the \u00e9kmittt\u00e9s governed ‘by  ‘V<\/p>\n
Rent Act or the pmvisio\ufb02s of the  suc’3zV_  for
\nejectment has to be \ufb01led beibzze  On
\ninterpretation of the pmvisione    Courts; Act,
\nthis Court has obse:Ve(Vi;V:-.th.\u00e9\u00a7t,’ ce\u00a7iit”_jt’Q:%””:3c,\u00e9.scssicn is net
\nmaintainable befoite  but in cases where
\nthe Act is a.;;.;;\u00a71i\u00a25abV’3.%,%;,.,vt1tE;V   mai\ufb01tai\ufb01able before the Small
\nCauses  i’;’~f~iet+.z:* is taken by this Court in.
\nthe decision,_VmpVcf:e\u00a71′ 2564 KAR 2864 in the matter of
\nms. \ufb01\ufb01bmges CQLTD. -vs- G,S.MSAR AHMED<\/p>\n
whe1\u00a5:in~\u00bb t_1;\u00abig, has observed that, Small Causes Courts<\/p>\n
6}     for possession with damages or mesmz:
\n it a suit only in cases of ejcctmcnt as
\n t’::a.;j1d:er Ar\ufb01cie 4 of the Karnataka Sma\ufb02 Causes Courts<\/p>\n
 that, Wham the Act is applicable. When sixnikar<\/p>\n
 .  came up befeme the Division Bench of this Court in<\/p>\n
 V,.4″‘C,t\u00a7:P.No.1O1]2O(}4 dated 13th Juiy 2007’, the civision Bench<\/p>\n
considezing the earlier decisions has heid that:<\/p>\n
{Er}<\/p>\n
\u00ab\u00a34-\n<\/p>\n
“The Smaii Causes Court can take cognizance only of
\nsuch suits w}’u’ch are \ufb02ied seeking ejeciment of tenants of __
\nthe premises it: which Kamataka Rent Act and no! in’
\nrespect of the teruzmis\/’ persons who occupy other *<\/p>\n
premises to which the Act does not appiy and w.hQ$e ‘e-‘V <\/p>\n
tenancy has been determined or has come to ar–“.~1_ end   ‘7’ <\/p>\n
either by e\ufb02lux of time or by wfzhdrawaf of the sc:n*\u00a3e.,V” \u00bb <\/p>\n
The Division Bench has held that, v\u20ac:;Al:;er\u00a2:A’j\u00abti1\u00e9’  ;”\u00a7ct,:_   e <\/p>\n
applicable, the suit for ejectment is :ua\u00a7ntai\ufb02ai$ie befeie
\nCauses Court. ‘  _ V    H<\/p>\n
21. in the light of the deffc;gion~s”‘;5fLV’\u00a3:~;\u00a2gV eviajsion’ Beech of ‘\u00a3315
\nCourt in ‘\u20ac116 matters of B.  THEATRES,<\/p>\n
BANGALORE and P.  \u00a7%.ehe;?\u00a7%;i:1* it isfh\u00e9ld that, even in<\/p>\n
case of exclufs-:i'(:2I1’\u20ac.)g1.”x continues to be
\ntenant. if  be tenant and is liable to
\npay only the   deijnages, in my view, the suit for
\npQ33essio:}’\u00a7, V da;\ufb01ag\ufb01$.._.beforc the Civil Court is not<\/p>\n
mei3::._taiI\u00a7a?;1}\u00a2, .,v’eve1:x th_Qugh it may work out hardship to the<\/p>\n
 j\u00e9eovisions of the Act are applicable and the
\nV f’\u00a2%ef\u20acf:1daI1t Bt3\ufb01$ \u20aci\u00e9i\ufb02ilant, the suit is \ufb01led before the City Civil
\n puoses7e:9,sion and damages, when the Karnataka Rent<\/p>\n
 in force and provisions of the other Parts of the<\/p>\n
   , V _ !Ac.i;’_j.rL%e1’e:app}.icable, as such, the suit before the City Civil Court is<\/p>\n
 \ufb01ainmmable. This is also clear from the de\ufb01nition of ‘tenant’<\/p>\n
\ufb01nder Section 3(r} of the Act. If the defendant con\ufb01nues to be<\/p>\n
V”?\n<\/p>\n
. 15 .\n<\/p>\n
tenant even after the notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of
\nPropexty Act, then it is only Smaii Cause Ceurt, which 11″-as got the<\/p>\n
jurisdiction and not the Civil Court.\n<\/p>\n
22. Since the issue touches the juxisdie\ufb01o1i”.v;\u00a3ft!:e:iZ2e\u00a7i11V\u00a3i the
\ncontention of jux\u00e9sdiction cannot be.” ii\u00e9:jected’–.Aon}y:ii’6i1_  AV <\/p>\n
that it is not taken. before the    the ‘A<\/p>\n
ohsewation made by the  ‘the
\nSINGH AND OTHERS isuprjez) an:.’;”i}ie:’det:i$fio1:i ef\ufb02ivieion Bench of
\nthis Court in  case {supra}.<\/p>\n
\n‘.23. Durieg  of the Karnataka Rent
\nControl Act    Rent Act has come into
\nforce.  iiieertgr is given to the lessor to seek<\/p>\n
appropriate” xtemedji   with law.\n<\/p>\n
  :i’I13..fir’?i.6\\?’\\\ufb02Of tliievi\ufb01seve, the appeal is allowed. The judgment<\/p>\n
 December 2002 in O.S.No.15}31\/1999 is<\/p>\n
qiia$_ii\u00a2d- V. i’<\/p>\n
 A.  I11’\ufb02.1e light of the above, the Cross Objection No.6\/2%’?<\/p>\n
   \ufb01at survive for consideration. Aceordingly, it is dismissed.<\/p>\n
KNM\/~
\nSd\/-\n<\/p>\n
Judge<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court V T Jayavelu vs Nisar Ahmed on 30 May, 2008 Author: Subhash B.Adi ,_. \u00a3E{\u00ab,”AxK\ufb02’}\ufb01)\\””-(M ‘ = 5 \u00a39 3 \/2 IN THE HIGH comm’ 09′ KARNATAKA AT BANGALQRE DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY 0? MAY 2002:; A’ BEFORE 4″%’ } THE H()N’BLE MR.JUS’I’lC_E..SU_BH\u00a3xSH” \u00a7.\u00a7,;_\u00e9,Ij5’1: Q REGULAR FIRST APPEEH. xG. :,-Qz\u00e9z }~ […]<\/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":[8,20],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-219100","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-karnataka-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nV T Jayavelu vs Nisar Ahmed on 30 May, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-t-jayavelu-vs-nisar-ahmed-on-30-may-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"V T Jayavelu vs Nisar Ahmed on 30 May, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-t-jayavelu-vs-nisar-ahmed-on-30-may-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2008-05-29T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-05-05T07:45:38+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"17 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-t-jayavelu-vs-nisar-ahmed-on-30-may-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-t-jayavelu-vs-nisar-ahmed-on-30-may-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"V T Jayavelu vs Nisar Ahmed on 30 May, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-05-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-05-05T07:45:38+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-t-jayavelu-vs-nisar-ahmed-on-30-may-2008\"},\"wordCount\":2927,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Karnataka High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-t-jayavelu-vs-nisar-ahmed-on-30-may-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-t-jayavelu-vs-nisar-ahmed-on-30-may-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-t-jayavelu-vs-nisar-ahmed-on-30-may-2008\",\"name\":\"V T Jayavelu vs Nisar Ahmed on 30 May, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-05-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-05-05T07:45:38+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-t-jayavelu-vs-nisar-ahmed-on-30-may-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-t-jayavelu-vs-nisar-ahmed-on-30-may-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-t-jayavelu-vs-nisar-ahmed-on-30-may-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"V T Jayavelu vs Nisar Ahmed on 30 May, 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:\\\/\\\/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":"V T Jayavelu vs Nisar Ahmed on 30 May, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-t-jayavelu-vs-nisar-ahmed-on-30-may-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"V T Jayavelu vs Nisar Ahmed on 30 May, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-t-jayavelu-vs-nisar-ahmed-on-30-may-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-05-29T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-05-05T07:45:38+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"17 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-t-jayavelu-vs-nisar-ahmed-on-30-may-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-t-jayavelu-vs-nisar-ahmed-on-30-may-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"V T Jayavelu vs Nisar Ahmed on 30 May, 2008","datePublished":"2008-05-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-05-05T07:45:38+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-t-jayavelu-vs-nisar-ahmed-on-30-may-2008"},"wordCount":2927,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Karnataka High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-t-jayavelu-vs-nisar-ahmed-on-30-may-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-t-jayavelu-vs-nisar-ahmed-on-30-may-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-t-jayavelu-vs-nisar-ahmed-on-30-may-2008","name":"V T Jayavelu vs Nisar Ahmed on 30 May, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-05-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-05-05T07:45:38+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-t-jayavelu-vs-nisar-ahmed-on-30-may-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-t-jayavelu-vs-nisar-ahmed-on-30-may-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-t-jayavelu-vs-nisar-ahmed-on-30-may-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"V T Jayavelu vs Nisar Ahmed on 30 May, 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:\/\/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\/219100","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=219100"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/219100\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=219100"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=219100"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=219100"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}