{"id":219577,"date":"1989-03-30T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1989-03-29T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vatan-mal-vs-kailash-nath-on-30-march-1989"},"modified":"2017-02-16T04:39:14","modified_gmt":"2017-02-15T23:09:14","slug":"vatan-mal-vs-kailash-nath-on-30-march-1989","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vatan-mal-vs-kailash-nath-on-30-march-1989","title":{"rendered":"Vatan Mal vs Kailash Nath on 30 March, 1989"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Vatan Mal vs Kailash Nath on 30 March, 1989<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1989 AIR 1534, \t\t 1989 SCR (2) 192<\/div>\n
Author: S Natrajan<\/div>\n
Bench: Natrajan, S. (J)<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nVATAN MAL\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nKAILASH NATH\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT30\/03\/1989\n\nBENCH:\nNATRAJAN, S. (J)\nBENCH:\nNATRAJAN, S. (J)\nPATHAK, R.S. (CJ)\nVENKATACHALLIAH, M.N. (J)\n\nCITATION:\n 1989 AIR 1534\t\t  1989 SCR  (2) 192\n 1989 SCC  (3)\t79\t  JT 1989 (2)\t196\n 1989 SCALE  (1)915\n\n\nACT:\n    Rajasthan  Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction)\tAct,\n1950--Section  13-A-benefit of provisions--Conferred on\t all\ntenants-Provided actual eviction had not taken place.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n    Appellant  herein  was  a lessee of\t the  Respondent  in\nrespect\t of  a shop since 1961, at a monthly rent  of  Rs.25\nlater  increased to Rs.30 and in addition to the said  rent,\nhe  was\t to pay house tax to the  municipality.\t Respondent-\nlandlord filed a suit for eviction against the appellant  on\nthe  ground  of default in payment of rent  for\t the  period\n1.2.1966 to 31.12.66. The appellant filed an application  in\nthat suit under sec. 13(4) of the Act (as it stood prior  to\namendment)  for\t determination of arrears of  rent  and\t the\ninterest  payable  thereon. The Trial Court  determined\t the\narrears\t of rent and the interest payable by the  appellant.\nConsequent  upon  the appellant's depositing the  same,\t the\nsuit  was dismissed in terms of sec. 13(7) of the  Act.\t The\nappellant continued depositing the rent in Court. Thereafter\nthe  Respondent filed another suit on 21.5.75 alleging\tthat\nthe appellant has again committed default in payment of rent\nand  should therefore be evicted. The appellant\t received  a\nnotice calling upon him to appear in Court on 10.2.76. Since\nhe  had\t not received a copy of the plaint, he\twas  granted\ntime  till  30.3.76 to file his written\t statement.  In\t the\nwritten\t statement he refuted his liability to pay the\trent\nand  also  moved  an application u\/s 13(3) &  13(4)  of\t the\namended Act praying that if in the course of his  depositing\nthe  rent  in  court, there has been any  omission,  due  to\noversight  the\tCourt may determine the arrears\t of  rent  &\ninterest payable thereon and permit him to deposit the\tsame\nin court.\n    It may be pointed out here that before the appellant was\nserved\twith the notice of the suit, the Act was amended  on\n29.9.75\t by  Amending Ordinance No. 26 of 75 whereby  a\t new\nsection\t 13-A was added to the Act. The object of the  newly\nadded section was to provide benefit to all tenants  against\nwhom  suits for eviction on the ground of default in  paying\nthe rent were pending by making a provision that the  Courts\nshall  not  pass any decree in favour of landlords  on\tthat\nground if the\n193\ntenant\tmakes an application within a stipulated period\t and\ndeposits in court the total rent due.\n    The\t Trial\tCourt passed orders on the  application\t u\/s\n13(3) & 13(4) and called upon the appellant to deposit a sum\nof  Rs.335  towards  arrears of\t rent  and  interest  before\n28.7.76.  The appellant complied with the order but  despite\nthat,  the Trial Court passed a decree for eviction and\t the\nappellate Court confirmed the same.\n    In\tthe  second appeal preferred by\t the  appellant,  he\ncontended  that\t the Trial Court ought to have\ttreated\t the\napplication filed by him u\/s 13(3) & 13(4), as one filed u\/s\n13-A  of the Act and given the benefit thereof to him.\tEven\nthough\tthe High Court found that the appellant\t having\t re-\nceived\tthe notice of the suit late and hence was not  in  a\nposition to make the application within 30 days, declined to\ninterfere  because in its view the Act has not provided\t for\nany  relief to tenants placed in the situation in which\t the\nappellant  was\tplaced.\t The High Court held  that  the\t Act\ncontains a lacuna but the same can be remedied by the legis-\nlature\tand not by Courts and as such the  appellant  cannot\nclaim  the benefit of sec. 13-A of the Act. The suit  having\nbeen  filed prior to the coming into force of Amending\tAct,\nthe  same  will be governed by the provisions  of  unamended\nAct.\n    On the dismissal of the second appeal by the High Court,\nthe appellant has filed this appeal after obtaining  special\nleave.\n    Before this Court two questions arose for  consideration\nviz: (1) whether the appellant is not entitled to the  bene-\nfit  of\t sec. 13-A because he had not filed  an\t application\nwithin 30 days from the date of commencement of the Act, and\n(2) even otherwise whether by reason of the earlier  default\nin  payment of rent for the period 1.2.1966  to\t 31.12.1966,\nthe  appellant\tis disentitled under the Act  to  claim\t the\nbenefit of sec. 13-A.\nAllowing the appeal, this Court,\n    HELD:  Section  13-A has been given\t overriding  effect.\nSubsection  (1) of section 13-A mandates all courts  not  to\npass  any decree in favour of a landlord for eviction  of  a\ntenant\ton the ground of nonpayment of rent, if\t the  tenant\nmakes  an  application\tas per clause (b) and  pays  to\t the\nlandlord or deposits in court within the prescribed time the\ntotal  amount of rent in arrears together with interest\t and\nfull costs of the suit. [199B-C]\n194\n    The\t intention of the legislature to confer the  benefit\nof section 13-A to all tenants, provided actual eviction had\nnot  taken place could further be seen by the terms of\tsec-\ntion (c). [199D-E]\n    It\twould be unreasonable and inequitable to  hold\tthat\nthe  legislature had intended to confer the benefit of\tsec.\n13-A  only to those tenants who had received notice  of\t the\nsuit filed against them before the Ordinance came into force\nand  not  to  those tenants against  whom  proceedings\twere\npending in the sense they had been instituted but who had no\nnotice of the pendency of the suit. [199F-G]\n    Even  though  it was found that some arrears had  to  be\npaid,  the  appellant cannot be denied the benefit  of\tsec.\n13-A because the section has been given overriding effect in\nso far as suits and other proceedings which were pending  on\nthe  date of the promulgation of the ordinance and  as\tsuch\nthe  proviso to sub-sec. (6) of sec. 13 of the\tamended\t Act\nwould  not disentitle the appellant to claim the benefit  of\nsec. 13-A. [202H; 203A]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
    B.P.  Khemka Pvt. Ltd. v.V.B.K. Bhowmick, [1987]  2\t SCR
\n559, referred to.\n<\/p>\n
    CIVIL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3604  of
\n1987.\n<\/p>\n
    From  the  Judgment\t and Order dated  19.9.1986  of\t the
\nRajasthan High Court in S.B.C.S.A. No. 163 of 1986.
\nS.K. Jain and 1. Makwana for the Appellant.\n<\/p>\n
    Rajinder  Sachar,  Rameshwar  Nath,\t B.P.S.\t Mangat\t and
\nSuresh Vohra for the Respondent.\n<\/p>\n
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\n    NATARAJAN,\tJ. In this appeal by special  leave  arising
\nfrom  a judgment of the High Court of Rajasthan in a  second
\nappeal, the question for consideration is whether the appel-
\nlant  will not be entitled to claim the benefit\t of  Section
\n13-A  of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent  and  Evic-
\ntion) Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) as\t has
\nbeen  held by the High Court. It is worthy of  mention\teven
\nhere that though the suit for eviction filed by the respond-
\nent was pending on the date the ordinance came to be promul-
\ngated, the appel-\n<\/p>\n
195<\/span><\/p>\n
lant had no knowledge of the filing of the suit and he\tcame
\nto be served with notice in the suit only after some  months
\nafter  the Ordinance came to be promulgated. The High  Court
\nhas based its conclusions on two factors viz. (1) no  appli-
\ncation under Section 13-A had been made by the appellant  in
\nthe suit filed by the respondent within a period of 30\tdays
\nfrom  the date of commencement of the Ordinance and (2)\t the
\nsuit had been filed before the Amending Ordinance No. 26  of
\n1975 was issued and hence the proceedings would be  governed
\nby the provisions of the unamended Act.\n<\/p>\n
    The\t facts\tare not in controversy and  are\t briefly  as
\nunder. Since 1961 the appellant was a lessee of the respond-
\nent  in\t respect of a shop. The agreed rent  was  Rs.25\t per
\nmensem\tand in addition he had also to pay the house tax  to
\nthe municipality. The rent was increased to Rs.30 per mensem
\nwith  effect from 1.1.1963. On the ground the appellant\t had
\ncommitted  default  in payment of rent for the\tperiod\t1.2.
\n1966  to 31.12.66, the respondent filed a suit on  17.1.1967
\nfor  eviction.\tThe  appellant filed  an  application  under
\nSection\t 13(4) of the Act (as it stood prior  to  amendment)
\nfor  determination of the arrears of rent and  the  interest
\npayable\t thereon. The Trial Court determined the arrears  of
\nrent  and the interest payable thereon and on the  appellant
\ndepositing  the\t same, the suit was dismissed  in  terms  of
\nSection 13(7) of the Act. Thereafter, the appellant went  on
\ndepositing the rent in court. However, the respondent  filed
\nanother\t suit  on 21.5.75 alleging that\t the  appellant\t had
\nagain committed default in payment of rent and should there-
\nfore  be  evicted. The appellant was served  with  a  notice
\ncalling upon him to appear in Court on 10.2.76. Since a copy
\nof the plaint was not sent along with the notice, the appel-
\nlant  was furnished a copy of the plaint on 10.2.76  and  he
\nwas granted time till 30.3.76 to file his written statement.
\nIn his written statement the appellant refuted his liability
\nto  be evicted on the ground of default in payment of  rent.
\nIn addition, by way of abundant caution, he filed a petition
\nunder  Section\t13(3) and 13(4) of the amended\tAct  praying
\nthat if in the course of depositing the rent during the long
\nperiod\tof eight years from 1967 to 1975 there had been\t any
\nomission, due to over-sight, in depositing the monthly rent,
\nthe  Court  may determine the amount of\t shortfall  and\t the
\ninterest payable thereon and permit him to deposit the\tsame
\nin Court.\n<\/p>\n
    Even before the appellant was served with notice in\t the
\nsuit,  the Act came to be amended on 29.9.1975\tby  Amending
\nOrdinance  No.\t26 of 1975 (later replaced by an  Act).\t The
\nOrdinance provided for a new section viz. Section 13-A being
\nadded to the Act. Section 13-A is in the following terms:\n<\/p>\n
196<\/span><\/p>\n
\t      “13-A. Special provisions relating to  pending
\n\t      and  other matters.–Notwithstanding  anything
\n\t      to  the  contrary in this Act  as\t it  existed
\n\t      before  the  commencement\t of  this   Amending
\n\t      Ordinance or in any other law.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (a) No court shall, in any proceeding  pending
\n\t      on  the date of commencement of the  (amending
\n\t      ordinance)  pass\tany decree in  favour  of  a
\n\t      landlord\tfor  eviction  of a  tenant  on\t the
\n\t      ground  of non-payment of rent, if the  tenant
\n\t      applies  under  clause  (b) and  pays  to\t the
\n\t      landlord,\t or deposits in court,\twithin\tsuch
\n\t      time  such aggregate of the amount or rent  in
\n\t      arrears,\tinterest thereon and full  costs  of
\n\t      the suit as may be directed by the court under
\n\t      and in accordance with that clause;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (b) in every such proceeding, the court shall,
\n\t      on  the application of the tenant made  within
\n\t      thirty  days from the date of commencement  of
\n\t      the  (amending ordinance) notwithstanding\t any
\n\t      order to the contrary determine the amount  of
\n\t      rent in arrears upto the date of the order  as
\n\t      also the amount of interest thereon at 6%\t per
\n\t      annum  and costs of the suit allowable to\t the
\n\t      landlord;\t and  direct the tenant to  pay\t the
\n\t      amount  so  determined within such  time,\t not
\n\t      exceeding ninety days, as may be fixed by\t the
\n\t      court;  and on such payment being made  within
\n\t      the  time fixed as aforesaid,  the  proceeding
\n\t      shall be disposed of as if the tenant had\t not
\n\t      committed any default;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (c)  the\tprovisions of clauses  (a)  and\t (b)
\n\t      shall  mutatis mutandis apply to all  appeals;
\n\t      or  applications for revisions,  preferred  or
\n\t      made, after the commencement of the  (amending
\n\t      ordinance) against decrees for eviction passed
\n\t      before  such commencement with  the  variation
\n\t      that  in clause (b), for the  expression\tfrom
\n\t      the commencement of the (amending\t ordinance),
\n\t      the expression “from the date of the presenta-
\n\t      tion  of the memorandum of appeal or  applica-
\n\t      tion for revision” shall be substituted;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (d) omitted.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (e) omitted.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (f) omitted.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
197<\/span><\/p>\n
The  Trial  Court, after hearing both  the  parties,  passed
\norders\ton .the application filed earlier by  the  appellant
\nunder  Sections 13(3) and 13(4) of the Act and\tcalled\tupon
\nthe appellant to deposit a sum of Rs.335 towards arrears  of
\nrent  and interest before 28.7.1976 after giving  credit  to
\nthe sum of Rs. 1290 already deposited by him. The  appellant
\ncomplied with the order of the Court by depositing the\tsaid
\namount within the prescribed time.\n<\/p>\n
    Even  so, the Trial Court passed a decree  for  eviction
\nagainst the appellant on the ground of default in payment of
\nrent  and the Appellate Court confirmed the decree.  In\t the
\nsecond\tappeal preferred to the High Court, the\t appellant’s
\ncounsel contended that the Trial Court ought to have treated
\nthe appellant’s application under Section 13(3) and 13(4) as
\none under Section 13-A and given the benefit of the  Section
\nto  the appellant and dismissed the suit for  eviction.\t The
\nHigh  Court, in spite of accepting the position that  though
\nthe suit was pending when the Amending Ordinance was promul-
\ngated,\tthe appellant could not have filed a petition  under
\nSection\t 13A within thirty days from the date of  the  Ordi-
\nnance  coming  into  force as the suit summons\tcame  to  be
\nserved on him only later, nevertheless declined to interfere
\nbecause in its view the Act has not provided for any  relief
\nto  tenants. placed in the situation in which the  appellant
\nwas  placed.  The High Court has further held that  the\t Act
\ncontains a lacuna but it can be remedied only by the  Legis-
\nlature\tand  not by the Courts and, as such,  the  appellant
\ncannot claim the benefit of Section 13A of the Act. The High
\nCourt has expressed its view in the following terms:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “Section 13-A of the Rent Control Act does not
\n\t      envisage and does not provide for a contingen-
\n\t      cy  as in the present case where the suit\t was
\n\t      pending but the defendant had no notice of the
\n\t      pendency\tof  the\t suit  and  could  not\thave
\n\t      availed of the benefit of Section 13-A of\t the
\n\t      Rent  Control  Act on account  of\t restriction
\n\t      placed under Clause (b) for filing an applica-
\n\t      tion  u\/s 13-A within one month from the\tdate
\n\t      of the commencement of the Amending Ordinance.
\n\t      It  is true that Section 13-A is a  beneficial
\n\t      legislation, to help the tenants but the Court
\n\t      cannot substitute or add something to the
\n\t      Act.  It will be for the legislature to  amend
\n\t      section 13-A of the Rent Control Act so as  to
\n\t      cover  up contingency arising in\tthe  present
\n\t      case. Language of Amended Section 13-A is\t not
\n\t      ambiguous and therefore, there is no  question
\n\t      of  interpreting so as to extend the  rule  of
\n\t      beneficial  construction in order to cover  up
\n\t      cases like the present one.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
198<\/span><\/p>\n
    The High Court has further held that since the appellant
\nhad committed default in payment of rent for a second  time,
\nhe  will  not be entitled to claim the\tbenefit\t of  Section
\n13(7)  of the Act once again. The High Court  has  expressed
\nits  view  on  this aspect of the matter  in  the  following
\nterms:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “It  is also not disputed that  defendant\t had
\n\t      taken benefit of Section 13(7) of the Old Rent
\n\t      Control  Act in an earlier suit filed  by\t the
\n\t      plaintiff on the ground of default in  payment
\n\t      of rent. Since the suit had been filed  before
\n\t      coming into force of the Amending Ordinance of
\n\t      1975  or the Amending Act of 1976, the  provi-
\n\t      sions  of\t the  Old Rent\tControl\t Act  before
\n\t      amendment will apply, as has been held by\t the
\n\t      Division\tBench  of this Court in\t Kishan\t Lal
\n\t      Sharma (supra).”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    The\t two grounds on which the High Court  had  dismissed
\nthe  appellant’s  second appeal are  the  subject-matter  of
\nattack in this appeal.\n<\/p>\n
    Learned  counsel  for the appellant contended  that\t the
\nHigh  Court,  after having found that though  the  suit\t was
\nadmittedly  pending when the Amending Ordinance was  promul-
\ngated  the  appellant had no notice of the pendency  of\t the
\nsuit at the relevant time and as such he could not  possibly
\nhave  filed an application within one month’s time from\t the
\ndate  of the commencement of the Ordinance, should not\thave
\ndenied\tthe benefit of Section 13-A to the appellant on\t the
\nground the Section does not provide for an application being
\nmade  beyond  a period of thirty days from the date  of\t the
\ncommencement  of  the  Ordinance. On  the  other  hand,\t the
\nlearned\t counsel for the respondent argued that the  Section
\nis  clear  in  its terms and, as such, the  High  Court\t was
\nperfectly  justified  in holding that the  appellant  cannot
\nclaim  benefits\t under Section 13A of the Act.\tIt  was\t his
\nfurther\t contention that since the appellant  had  committed
\ndefault in payment of rent for a second time he will not  be
\nentitled  to  claim benefit under Section 13A, even  if\t the
\ndelay in filing the application beyond the prescribed period
\nof thirty days is to be overlooked. In view of the conflict-
\ning arguments of the learned counsel, two questions fall for
\nconsideration viz (1) whether the appellant is not  entitled
\nto claim the benefit of Section 13A because he had not filed
\nan application within thirty days from the date of commence-
\nment  of  the Ordinance and (2) even otherwise,\t whether  by
\nreason\tof  the earlier default in payment of rent  for\t the
\nperiod 1-2-1966 to 31-12-1966, the appellant is\t disentitled
\nunder the Act to claim the benefit of Section 13A.\n<\/p>\n
199<\/span><\/p>\n
So  far as the first question is concerned, the\t High  Court
\nhas failed to see that the object of enacting Section 13A by
\nthe Legislature was to confer benefit on all tenants against
\nwhom suits for eviction on the ground of default in  payment
\nof  rent were pending. To achieve the object,  Section\t13-A
\nhas been given overriding effect. Sub-clause (1) of  Section
\n13-A mandates all courts not to pass any decree in favour of
\na  landlord for eviction of a tenant on the ground  of\tnon-
\npayment\t of rent, if the tenant makes an application as\t per
\nclause\t(b)  and pays to the landlord or deposits  in  court
\nwithin\tthe  prescribed\t time the total amount\tof  rent  in
\narrears\t together with interest and full costs of the  suit.
\nIt  is no doubt true sub-clause (b) lays down that in  every
\nsuch  proceeding, the Court shall, on the application  of  a
\ntenant\tmade  within thirty days from the date of  the\tcom-
\nmencement of the amending Ordinance, determine the amount of
\nrent in arrears as well as the amount of interest at six per
\ncent  per  annum and the costs of the suit  and\t direct\t the
\ntenant\tto  pay the amount so determined within a  time\t not
\nexceeding  ninety  days as may be fixed by the\tCourt.\tSub-
\nclause (b) further provides that on such payment being made,
\nthe  proceedings shall be disposed of as if the\t tenant\t had
\nnot committed any default. The intention of the\t Legislature
\nto confer the benefit of Section 13A to all tenants, provid-
\ned  actual  eviction had not taken place, could\t further  be
\nseen  by the terms of sub-clause (c). Under  sub-clause\t (c)
\nthe  provisions of sub-clause (a) & (b) have been  made\t ap-
\nplicable mutatis mutandis to all appeals or applications for
\nrevision  preferred  or made after the commencement  of\t the
\nAmending  Ordinance  and the only stipulation  contained  is
\nthat  the tenant preferring an appeal or an application\t for
\nrevision should apply to the Court within a period of thirty
\ndays  from  the date of presentation of\t the  memorandum  of
\nappeal\tor the application for revision for giving  him\t the
\nbenefit\t of  Section 13A. Such being the case, it  would  be
\nunreasonable\tand   inequitable   to\t hold\t that\t the
\nLegislature\/had\t intended to confer the benefit\t of  Section
\n13A  only  to those tenants who had received notice  of\t the
\nsuit filed against them before the Ordinance came into force
\nand  not  to  those tenants against  whom  proceedings\twere
\npending in the sense they had been instituted but who had no
\nnotice\tof  the pendency of the suit. In this  case,  it  is
\ncommon ground that though the suit was filed by the respond-
\nent on 21-5-1975, the appellant had no notice of the suit on
\n29.9.1975 when the Ordinance was promulgated or even  before
\nthe expiry of thirty days after the Ordinance was promulgat-
\ned. Such being the case, the appellant, even if he had known
\nof the promulgation of the Amending Ordinance on  29-9-1975,
\ncould not have known that a suit for eviction had been filed
\nagainst him on the ground of default in payment of rent\t and
\nthat he should file an applica-\n<\/p>\n
200<\/span><\/p>\n
tion  under Sec. 13-A(1)(b) within thirty days of  the\tcom-
\nmencement of the Ordinance. It would therefore be futile  to
\nexpect\tcompliance from him of the terms of Sec.  13-A(1)(b)
\nin  the suit which was no doubt pending, within thirty\tdays
\nfrom the date of the commencement of the Ordinance to  claim
\nthe benefit of Section 13A.\n<\/p>\n
    A somewhat similar situation came to be noticed by\tthis
\nCourt in B.P. Khemka Pvt. Ltd. v.B.K. Bhowmick, [1987] 2 SCR\n<\/p>\n
559.  In  that case the tenant made an application,  in\t the
\nsuit  filed  by the landlord for eviction on the  ground  of
\ndefault in payment of rent, under Section 17(2) of the\tWest
\nBengal\tPremises Tenancy Act for the court  determining\t the
\namount\tof rent payable by him to the landlord.\t During\t the
\npendency of the proceeding, the West Bengal Premises Tenancy
\n(Amending)  Ordinance, which was later replaced by  an\tAct,
\ncame  to  be promulgated with effect  from  26-8-1967.\tSub-
\nsections (2A) and (2B) to Section 17 of the Act were insert-
\ned and Section 5 of the Ordinance gave retrospective  effect
\nto  the amendments and provided that the amendments made  by
\nthe Ordinance shall have effect in respect of suits  includ-
\ning appeals which were pending on the date of the  commence-
\nment  of the Ordinance. To avail the benefit of the  amended
\nprovision,  the tenant preferred an application\t within\t one
\nmonth and prayed for the payment of the arrears of the rent.
\nThe  Trial Court determined the amount and the\ttenant\tpaid
\nthe  entire arrears but even so the Trial Court\t struck\t off
\nthe  defence of the appellant on the ground that  in  paying
\nthe  rent for the months of September, 1968 and March,\t1969
\nthere  had been a delay of 44 days and 6  days\trespectively
\nand hence there was a contravention of Section 17(1) of\t the
\nAct.  Thereafter  the landlord’s suit was  decreed  and\t the
\ndecree\twas confirmed by the Appellate Court. In the  second
\nappeal\tpreferred  by  the tenant the High  Court  not\tonly
\nconfirmed  the decree for eviction but went a  step  further
\nand  held that the tenant was not entitled under the Act  to
\nfile  an application under Section 17(2A)(b) because he\t had
\nnot  filed the application within the time  specified  under
\nSub-section  (1)  of Section 17 of the Act viz.\t “one  month
\nfrom the service of the writ of summons on the defendant  or
\nwhere he appears in the suit or proceeding without the\twrit
\nof  summons  being served on him, within one  month  of\t his
\nappearance.” The High Court expressed its View as under:\n<\/p>\n
\t\t    In\t our  view,  the  application  under
\n\t      section  17(2A)(b) was not also  maintainable.
\n\t      It  is  true that Section 17(2A)(b)  was\tmade
\n\t      applicable to pending suits by the  Ordinance.
\n\t      But such applicability will be subject to\t the
\n\t      limitation imposed
\n\t      201<\/span>
\n\t      by  sub-section  (2B) of Section\t17,  namely,
\n\t      that an application under sub-section  (2A)(b)
\n\t      has  to be made before the expiry of the\ttime
\n\t      specified in sub-section (1) of Section 17 for
\n\t      the  deposit or payment of the amount  due  on
\n\t      account  of default in payment of rent.  Under
\n\t      sub-section (1) of Section 17 the time  speci-
\n\t      fied is one month from the service of the writ
\n\t      of  summons on the defendant or where  he\t ap-
\n\t      pears  in the suit or proceeding\twithout\t the
\n\t      writ  of summons being served on\thim,  within
\n\t      one  month of his appearance. In\tthe  instant
\n\t      case, the summons was served on the defendants
\n\t      on  April 6, 1967. The application under\tsec-
\n\t      tion 17(2A)(b) having been filed on  September
\n\t      22,  1967, it was barred by limitation   …..
\n\t      In our view, after the expiry of one month  of
\n\t      the service of summons on the defendants, they
\n\t      had no right to avail themselves of the provi-
\n\t      sions  of section 17(2A). Sub-section (2B)  of
\n\t      section 17 having prescribed a time limit\t for
\n\t      an  application  under  sub-section  (2A),  no
\n\t      other period of limitation can be\t substituted
\n\t      for  the purpose of making an application\t for
\n\t      instalments.  It\tis true that the  Act  is  a
\n\t      remedial statute, but that fact does not\tgive
\n\t      the Court jurisdiction to alter the period  of
\n\t      limitation  as prescribed by the\tstatute\t for
\n\t      the purpose of giving relief to the tenant. If
\n\t      the  legislature had intended that the  tenant
\n\t      in a pending suit would be entitled to make an
\n\t      application  under section 17(2A)\t within\t one
\n\t      month  of\t the  date of  promulgation  of\t the
\n\t      Ordinance,  it would have\t expressly  provided
\n\t      for  the\tsame as it has done in\tother  cases
\n\t      covered by section 17B and 17D.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    In\tthe  appeal preferred by the tenant  to\t this  Court
\nagainst\t the judgment of the High Court, this  Court  disap-
\nproved\tthe view taken by the High Court. In  the  judgment,
\nreference was made to the decisions in Madhav Raw Scindia v.
\nUnion of India, AIR SC 197 1 530 and Dy. Custodian v.  Offi-
\ncial Receiver, [1965] 1 SCR 220 while setting out the  prin-
\nciple  to be followed in the matter of construction  of\t the
\nprovisions of an Act. It was observed that the provisions of
\nan Act must be construed in such a manner that the construc-
\ntion  should  serve  the purpose of achieving  the  aim\t and
\nobject\tof  the\t Act and not in a way as  would\t defeat\t the
\nlegislative  intent  behind the Act. After setting  out\t the
\nprinciple,  the fallacy contained in the view taken  by\t the
\nHigh Court was pointed out in the following manner:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “The  High Court was, therefore, in  error  in
\n\t      holding that
\n\t      202<\/span>
\n\t      the  application under Section  17(2A)(b)\t was
\n\t      itself  not maintainable. If the High  Court’s
\n\t      view is to be accepted it would then amount to
\n\t      asking the appellant to perform the impossible
\n\t      i.e. asking the appellant to file an  applica-
\n\t      tion under section  17(2A)(b) which came\tinto
\n\t      force on 26.8. 1967 within one month from 6.4.
\n\t      1967 when the suit summons was served.”
\n    The\t view taken in B.B. Khemka (supra) would have  rele-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
vance  in this case also because though the  amending  Ordi-
\nnance  came  to be promulgated on 29-9-1975,  the  appellant
\ncame to know of the filing of the suit only long after\twhen
\nnotice\twas served on him to appear in Court  on  10-2-1976.
\nTherefore,  the\t question  of filing  an  application  under
\nSection 13A would arise only when the appellant came to know
\nof  the filing of the suit and its pendency.  In  construing
\nthe terms of Section 13A, the Court has to bear in mind\t the
\nobject\tunderlying  the introduction of the Section  by\t the
\nLegislature. It is a settled principle that the\t interpreta-
\ntion  of the provisions of a statute should conform  to\t the
\nlegislative intent as far as possible and the Courts  should
\nnot  take a narrow or restricted view which will defeat\t the
\npurpose\t of the Act. So viewed the first question has to  be
\nanswered in favour of the appellant.\n<\/p>\n
    In so far as the second question is concerned, it is not
\nas  if the appellant had committed a second default  in\t the
\nstrict\tsense  of the term. The earlier suit  was  filed  on
\n17-1-1967  and the appellant had made an  application  under
\nSection\t 13(4) of the Act and had the amount of arrears\t and
\nthe interest payable thereon determined by the Court. There-
\nafter  he had been depositing the rent in  Court  regularly.
\nHowever,  when the respondent filed a second suit  on  21-5-
\n1975 alleging that the appellant had again committed default
\nin  payment of rent, the appellant had bonafide\t represented
\nto the Court that he had been regularly depositing the\trent
\nand the house tax but it may be possible that there may have
\nbeen  some  delay  or omission here and there  in  the\tlong
\nperiod\tof eight years in the payment of rent and hence\t the
\nCourt  may  determine  the amount of arrears,  if  any,\t and
\nafford\thim opportunity to pay the arrears. This prayer\t was
\ngranted\t and  the Court had determined the arrears  and\t the
\ninterest  payable  thereon and the appellant  deposited\t the
\namount so determined within the prescribed time. It  cannot,
\ntherefore,  be\tsaid that the appellant\t had  knowingly\t and
\nwilfully  committed  a second default. Even  though  it\t was
\nfound that some arrears had to be paid, the appellant cannot
\nbe denied the benefit of Section 13A because the Section has
\nbeen  given overriding effect in so far as suits  and  other
\nproceedings which were pending on
\n203<\/span>
\nthe  date of the promulgation of the Ordinance and  as\tsuch
\nthe proviso to sub-section 6 of the Section 13 of the amend-
\ned  Act\t would\tnot disentitle the appellant  to  claim\t the
\nbenefit\t of  Section 13-A. The High Court was  therefore  in
\nerror  in holding that since the suit had been filed  before
\nSec-13A was introduced, the appellant would be governed only
\nby the provisions of the Act before its amendment.
\n    For\t these\treasons the second question also has  to  be
\nanswered  in  favour of the appellant. In the light  of\t our
\nconclusion on the two questions falling for consideration in
\nthis  appeal, the judgment of the High Court as well as\t the
\njudgments  of the courts below cannot be sustained.  Accord-
\ningly,\tthe  appeal  is allowed and the suit  filed  by\t the
\nrespondent will stand dismissed. The appellant will however,
\npay  the full costs of the suit to the respondent as  envis-
\naged  under  Section 13-A, if he has not  already  paid\t the
\nsame. No order as to costs in this appeal.\n<\/p>\n
Y.L.\t\t\t\t\t\t      Appeal\nallowed.\n204<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Vatan Mal vs Kailash Nath on 30 March, 1989 Equivalent citations: 1989 AIR 1534, 1989 SCR (2) 192 Author: S Natrajan Bench: Natrajan, S. (J) PETITIONER: VATAN MAL Vs. RESPONDENT: KAILASH NATH DATE OF JUDGMENT30\/03\/1989 BENCH: NATRAJAN, S. (J) BENCH: NATRAJAN, S. (J) PATHAK, R.S. (CJ) VENKATACHALLIAH, M.N. (J) CITATION: 1989 […]<\/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-219577","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nVatan Mal vs Kailash Nath on 30 March, 1989 - 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\/vatan-mal-vs-kailash-nath-on-30-march-1989\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Vatan Mal vs Kailash Nath on 30 March, 1989 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vatan-mal-vs-kailash-nath-on-30-march-1989\" \/>\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=\"1989-03-29T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-02-15T23:09:14+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=\"25 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vatan-mal-vs-kailash-nath-on-30-march-1989#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vatan-mal-vs-kailash-nath-on-30-march-1989\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Vatan Mal vs Kailash Nath on 30 March, 1989\",\"datePublished\":\"1989-03-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-02-15T23:09:14+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vatan-mal-vs-kailash-nath-on-30-march-1989\"},\"wordCount\":3974,\"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\\\/vatan-mal-vs-kailash-nath-on-30-march-1989#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vatan-mal-vs-kailash-nath-on-30-march-1989\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vatan-mal-vs-kailash-nath-on-30-march-1989\",\"name\":\"Vatan Mal vs Kailash Nath on 30 March, 1989 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1989-03-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-02-15T23:09:14+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vatan-mal-vs-kailash-nath-on-30-march-1989#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vatan-mal-vs-kailash-nath-on-30-march-1989\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vatan-mal-vs-kailash-nath-on-30-march-1989#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Vatan Mal vs Kailash Nath on 30 March, 1989\"}]},{\"@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":"Vatan Mal vs Kailash Nath on 30 March, 1989 - 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\/vatan-mal-vs-kailash-nath-on-30-march-1989","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Vatan Mal vs Kailash Nath on 30 March, 1989 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vatan-mal-vs-kailash-nath-on-30-march-1989","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1989-03-29T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-02-15T23:09:14+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":"25 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vatan-mal-vs-kailash-nath-on-30-march-1989#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vatan-mal-vs-kailash-nath-on-30-march-1989"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Vatan Mal vs Kailash Nath on 30 March, 1989","datePublished":"1989-03-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-02-15T23:09:14+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vatan-mal-vs-kailash-nath-on-30-march-1989"},"wordCount":3974,"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\/vatan-mal-vs-kailash-nath-on-30-march-1989#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vatan-mal-vs-kailash-nath-on-30-march-1989","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vatan-mal-vs-kailash-nath-on-30-march-1989","name":"Vatan Mal vs Kailash Nath on 30 March, 1989 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1989-03-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-02-15T23:09:14+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vatan-mal-vs-kailash-nath-on-30-march-1989#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vatan-mal-vs-kailash-nath-on-30-march-1989"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vatan-mal-vs-kailash-nath-on-30-march-1989#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Vatan Mal vs Kailash Nath on 30 March, 1989"}]},{"@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\/219577","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=219577"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/219577\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=219577"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=219577"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=219577"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}