{"id":2194,"date":"2008-05-05T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-05-04T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/niyaz-ahmad-khan-vs-mahmood-rahmat-ullah-khan-anr-on-5-may-2008"},"modified":"2019-03-18T18:24:22","modified_gmt":"2019-03-18T12:54:22","slug":"niyaz-ahmad-khan-vs-mahmood-rahmat-ullah-khan-anr-on-5-may-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/niyaz-ahmad-khan-vs-mahmood-rahmat-ullah-khan-anr-on-5-may-2008","title":{"rendered":"Niyaz Ahmad Khan vs Mahmood Rahmat Ullah Khan & Anr on 5 May, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Niyaz Ahmad Khan vs Mahmood Rahmat Ullah Khan & Anr on 5 May, 2008<\/div>\n
Author: R.V.Raveendran<\/div>\n
Bench: R.V. Raveendran, Lokeshwar Singh Panta<\/div>\n
                             IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA\n                                                                 Reportable\n                   CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION\n\n                    CIVIL APPEAL NO.3372 OF 2008\n                  (Arising out of SLP [C] No.18453\/2006)\n\n\nNiyas Ahmad Khan                                          ... Appellant (s)\n\n                                   Versus\n\nMahmood Rahmat Ullah Khan & Anr.                          ... Respondent (s)\n\n\n\n\n                                 ORDER\n<\/pre>\n
R.V.RAVEENDRAN, J.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      Leave granted. Heard both sides.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
2.    The appellant is the tenant and the respondents are the landlords. On<\/p>\n
allotment of the premises which is the subject matter of the proceedings to<\/p>\n
the appellant, the rent was fixed as Rs.150\/- per month under section 16(9)<\/p>\n
of the U.P.Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act,<\/p>\n
1972 (`Act’ for short) in the year 1985. The respondents initiated<\/p>\n
proceedings for eviction of the appellant under section 21(1)(a) of the Act in<\/p>\n
the year 1998, on the ground that they required the premises for their own
\n                                       2<\/span><\/p>\n
use. The Prescribed Authority dismissed the petition for eviction and that<\/p>\n
was confirmed by the Appellate Authority by dismissing the appeal by the<\/p>\n
respondents. Feeling aggrieved, the respondents filed a writ petition before<\/p>\n
the Allahabad High Court under Article 226\/227 of the Constitution of<\/p>\n
India.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
3.       While admitting the said writ petition filed by the landlords, a learned<\/p>\n
Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court issued an interim direction dated<\/p>\n
17.10.2006 to the tenant (appellate herein) to pay rent at the rate of<\/p>\n
Rs.12,050\/- per month with effect from October, 2006 with a further<\/p>\n
direction that if the rent at that rate is not paid for two consecutive months,<\/p>\n
the landlord could evict the tenant by coercive process with the aid of<\/p>\n
police. The learned Judge has justified his interim direction on the ground<\/p>\n
that in exercise of writ jurisdiction the High Court can reasonably increase<\/p>\n
the rent so as to bring it on par with the prevailing market rentals. The<\/p>\n
increased rent was assessed in the following manner :\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
         (i) Rent for six rooms (at Rs.1500\/- per room)      Rs.9000\/-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
         (ii) Kitchen                                        Rs. 500\/-\n         (iii) Three verandahs (at Rs.500\/- per verandah)    Rs.1500\/-\n         (iv) Open terrace                                   Rs. 300\/-\n         (v) Three latrines\/bathrooms (at Rs.250 each)       Rs. 750\/-\n                                                             --------------\n                                     3<\/span>\n\n\n                                         TOTAL             Rs.12,050\/-\n                                                           ========\n\n\n<\/pre>\n
The tenant has challenged the said interim order of the High Court in this<\/p>\n
appeal by special leave.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
4.     The premises in question is governed by the provisions of the Act.<\/p>\n
The said Act contains provisions relating to fixation of standard rent and for<\/p>\n
increase in rent. Where the statute specifically provides for fixation of rent<\/p>\n
and increase in rent, it is impermissible for the High Court to ignore those<\/p>\n
provisions and direct the tenant to pay an arbitrarily assessed rent. Neither<\/p>\n
the power of judicial review under Article 226 nor the power of<\/p>\n
superintendence under Article 227, can be exercised in a manner ignoring or<\/p>\n
violating the specific provisions of a statute. While purporting to exercise<\/p>\n
the power under Article 227 to keep inferior courts and tribunals within the<\/p>\n
limits of their authority, the High Court should not itself cross the limits of<\/p>\n
its authority.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
5.     In this case, the landlord filed an eviction petition seeking possession<\/p>\n
on the ground that they bona fide required the suit premises for their own<\/p>\n
use. The said request was rejected both by the Prescribed Authority and by
\n                                      4<\/span><\/p>\n
the Appellate Authority. The landlord therefore approached the High Court<\/p>\n
challenging the said rejection by filing a writ petition. The prayer in the writ<\/p>\n
petition was for quashing the orders of the Prescribed Authority and the<\/p>\n
Appellate Authority and for grant of an order of eviction. There was no<\/p>\n
prayer for a direction for payment of any rent or for payment of any<\/p>\n
increased rent. When the grievance in the writ petition was only in regard to<\/p>\n
refusal of an order of eviction under section 21(1)(a) of the Act, there is no<\/p>\n
justification for directing payment of a higher rent either pending<\/p>\n
consideration of the writ petition or otherwise.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
6.    Even assuming that the High Court has power to increase the rent, we<\/p>\n
fail to understand how in the absence of any evidence — either oral or<\/p>\n
documentary or by way of affidavit, the learned Single Judge could assess<\/p>\n
the rent as Rs.12,050 which is more than 48 times, the rent of Rs.250 earlier<\/p>\n
determined. The learned Single Judge did not consider any of the relevant<\/p>\n
circumstances like the market value of the building on the date of letting,<\/p>\n
prevailing rentals in the locality as on the date of letting, the size or<\/p>\n
situation or amenities, age of construction, latest assessment of the building<\/p>\n
or other circumstances. Further, when a premises consisting of several<\/p>\n
rooms, verandahs, kitchen, terrace, bathrooms, latrines, is let out as a single
\n                                      5<\/span><\/p>\n
unit, the question of assessing the rent with reference to each room or<\/p>\n
portion of such premises separately does not arise. The learned Judge’s<\/p>\n
observation that by taking a pragmatic approach he was assessing the rent at<\/p>\n
Rs.12,050, to say the least, is arbitrary and contrary to law.<\/p>\n
7.       The learned counsel for respondent-landlord submitted that in several<\/p>\n
cases, this court has rejected the challenge to similar orders by refusing to<\/p>\n
grant special leave. Dismissal of a special leave petition, in limine does not<\/p>\n
preclude this Court from examining the same issue in other cases. Further,<\/p>\n
where the rent is increased reasonably, having regard to the fact that the<\/p>\n
interim direction is purely a temporary arrangement during the pendency of<\/p>\n
the writ petition, it is possible that this Court might have refused to interfere<\/p>\n
under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. Every wrong or doubtful<\/p>\n
exercise of jurisdiction does not call for grant of special leave, particularly if<\/p>\n
the order has not resulted in any injustice. In fact, in several cases, this<\/p>\n
Court has set aside the similar interim directions for payment of excessive<\/p>\n
rents.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
8.       We should however note the distinction between cases where a writ<\/p>\n
petition is filed by the tenant challenging the order of eviction and seeking
\n                                     6<\/span><\/p>\n
stay of execution thereof, and cases where a writ petition is filed by the<\/p>\n
landlord challenging the rejection of a petition for eviction. What we have<\/p>\n
stated above is with reference to writ petitions filed by landlords. In writ<\/p>\n
petitions filed by tenants, while granting stay of execution of the order of<\/p>\n
eviction pending disposal of writ petition, the High Court has the discretion<\/p>\n
to impose reasonable conditions to safeguard the interests of the landlord.<\/p>\n
But even in such cases the High Court cannot obviously impose conditions<\/p>\n
which are ex facie arbitrary and oppressive thereby making the order of stay<\/p>\n
illusory. When a tenant files a writ petition challenging the order of<\/p>\n
eviction, the High Court may reject the writ petition if it finds no merit in<\/p>\n
the case of the tenant; or in some cases, the High Court may admit the writ<\/p>\n
petition but refuse to grant stay of execution, in which event, the tenant may<\/p>\n
be evicted, but can claim restoration of possession if he ultimately succeeds<\/p>\n
in the writ petition; or in some cases, the High Court finding the case fit for<\/p>\n
admission, may grant stay of eviction, with or without conditions, so that<\/p>\n
status quo is maintained till the matter is decided. Where the High Court<\/p>\n
chooses to impose any conditions in regard to stay, such conditions should<\/p>\n
not be unreasonable or oppressive or in terrorem. Adopting some arbitrary<\/p>\n
figure as prevailing market rent without any basis and directing the tenant to<\/p>\n
pay absurdly high rent would be considered oppressive and unreasonable
\n                                      7<\/span><\/p>\n
even when such direction is issued as a condition for stay of eviction. High<\/p>\n
Court should desist from doing so.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
9.    To sum up, in writ petitions by landlord against rejection of eviction<\/p>\n
petitions, there is no scope for issue of any interim direction to the tenant to<\/p>\n
pay higher rent. But in writ petitions by tenants against grant of eviction, the<\/p>\n
High Court may, as a condition of stay, direct the tenant to pay higher rent<\/p>\n
during the pendency of the writ petition. This again is subject to two<\/p>\n
limitations. First, the condition should be reasonable. Second, there should<\/p>\n
not be any bar in the respective State rent control legislation in regard to<\/p>\n
such increase in rent. Be that as it may.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
10.   The appeal is allowed and the order dated 17.10.2006 passed by the<\/p>\n
High Court directing the tenant to pay rent at the rate of Rs.12050\/- per<\/p>\n
month from October, 2006 is set aside.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                              ……………………………J.<\/p>\n
\n                                              (R V Raveendran)\n\n\n\nNew Delhi;                                    ...............................J.\nMay 5, 2008.                                  (Lokeshwar Singh Panta)\n8<\/span>\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Niyaz Ahmad Khan vs Mahmood Rahmat Ullah Khan & Anr on 5 May, 2008 Author: R.V.Raveendran Bench: R.V. Raveendran, Lokeshwar Singh Panta IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Reportable CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.3372 OF 2008 (Arising out of SLP [C] No.18453\/2006) Niyas Ahmad Khan … Appellant (s) Versus Mahmood […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2194","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nNiyaz Ahmad Khan vs Mahmood Rahmat Ullah Khan & Anr on 5 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\/niyaz-ahmad-khan-vs-mahmood-rahmat-ullah-khan-anr-on-5-may-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Niyaz Ahmad Khan vs Mahmood Rahmat Ullah Khan & Anr on 5 May, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/niyaz-ahmad-khan-vs-mahmood-rahmat-ullah-khan-anr-on-5-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=\"2008-05-04T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-03-18T12:54:22+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\\\/niyaz-ahmad-khan-vs-mahmood-rahmat-ullah-khan-anr-on-5-may-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/niyaz-ahmad-khan-vs-mahmood-rahmat-ullah-khan-anr-on-5-may-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Niyaz Ahmad Khan vs Mahmood Rahmat Ullah Khan & Anr on 5 May, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-05-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-03-18T12:54:22+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/niyaz-ahmad-khan-vs-mahmood-rahmat-ullah-khan-anr-on-5-may-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1346,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/niyaz-ahmad-khan-vs-mahmood-rahmat-ullah-khan-anr-on-5-may-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/niyaz-ahmad-khan-vs-mahmood-rahmat-ullah-khan-anr-on-5-may-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/niyaz-ahmad-khan-vs-mahmood-rahmat-ullah-khan-anr-on-5-may-2008\",\"name\":\"Niyaz Ahmad Khan vs Mahmood Rahmat Ullah Khan & Anr on 5 May, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-05-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-03-18T12:54:22+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/niyaz-ahmad-khan-vs-mahmood-rahmat-ullah-khan-anr-on-5-may-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/niyaz-ahmad-khan-vs-mahmood-rahmat-ullah-khan-anr-on-5-may-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/niyaz-ahmad-khan-vs-mahmood-rahmat-ullah-khan-anr-on-5-may-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Niyaz Ahmad Khan vs Mahmood Rahmat Ullah Khan & Anr on 5 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":"Niyaz Ahmad Khan vs Mahmood Rahmat Ullah Khan & Anr on 5 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\/niyaz-ahmad-khan-vs-mahmood-rahmat-ullah-khan-anr-on-5-may-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Niyaz Ahmad Khan vs Mahmood Rahmat Ullah Khan & Anr on 5 May, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/niyaz-ahmad-khan-vs-mahmood-rahmat-ullah-khan-anr-on-5-may-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-05-04T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-03-18T12:54:22+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\/niyaz-ahmad-khan-vs-mahmood-rahmat-ullah-khan-anr-on-5-may-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/niyaz-ahmad-khan-vs-mahmood-rahmat-ullah-khan-anr-on-5-may-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Niyaz Ahmad Khan vs Mahmood Rahmat Ullah Khan & Anr on 5 May, 2008","datePublished":"2008-05-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-03-18T12:54:22+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/niyaz-ahmad-khan-vs-mahmood-rahmat-ullah-khan-anr-on-5-may-2008"},"wordCount":1346,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/niyaz-ahmad-khan-vs-mahmood-rahmat-ullah-khan-anr-on-5-may-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/niyaz-ahmad-khan-vs-mahmood-rahmat-ullah-khan-anr-on-5-may-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/niyaz-ahmad-khan-vs-mahmood-rahmat-ullah-khan-anr-on-5-may-2008","name":"Niyaz Ahmad Khan vs Mahmood Rahmat Ullah Khan & Anr on 5 May, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-05-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-03-18T12:54:22+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/niyaz-ahmad-khan-vs-mahmood-rahmat-ullah-khan-anr-on-5-may-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/niyaz-ahmad-khan-vs-mahmood-rahmat-ullah-khan-anr-on-5-may-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/niyaz-ahmad-khan-vs-mahmood-rahmat-ullah-khan-anr-on-5-may-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Niyaz Ahmad Khan vs Mahmood Rahmat Ullah Khan & Anr on 5 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\/2194","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=2194"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2194\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2194"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2194"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2194"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}