{"id":223780,"date":"2001-08-21T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2001-08-20T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kapil-bhargava-mrs-and-ors-vs-subhash-chand-aggarwal-and-ors-on-21-august-2001"},"modified":"2017-07-23T15:04:35","modified_gmt":"2017-07-23T09:34:35","slug":"kapil-bhargava-mrs-and-ors-vs-subhash-chand-aggarwal-and-ors-on-21-august-2001","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kapil-bhargava-mrs-and-ors-vs-subhash-chand-aggarwal-and-ors-on-21-august-2001","title":{"rendered":"Kapil Bhargava (Mrs.) And Ors vs Subhash Chand Aggarwal And Ors on 21 August, 2001"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Kapil Bhargava (Mrs.) And Ors vs Subhash Chand Aggarwal And Ors on 21 August, 2001<\/div>\n
Bench: A.P. Misra, U.C. Banerjee<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil)  5593 of 2001\n\nPETITIONER:\nKAPIL BHARGAVA (MRS.) AND ORS.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSUBHASH CHAND AGGARWAL AND ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 21\/08\/2001\n\nBENCH:\nA.P. MISRA & U.C. BANERJEE\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
JUDGMENT<\/p>\n
2001 Supp(2) SCR 12<\/p>\n
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by MISRA, J. Leave granted.\n<\/p>\n
This appeal by the sub-tenant seeking quashing of the judgment and order
\ndated 28th February, 2000 by the High Court in second appeal from order by
\nwhich the landlord’s appeal was allowed for a decree of eviction.\n<\/p>\n
The question in issue is:\n<\/p>\n
Whether an eviction order passed under clause (d) to proviso to sub-section
\n(1) of Section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, on the face of the
\nfinding recorded that the appellant is a lawful sub-tenant in respect of
\nthe premises since before 9th June, 1952 would be valid.\n<\/p>\n
This entails interpretation of Sections 16,17 and 18 of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
In 1974 Rama Rani and her son Sher Bahadur the original landlord filed an
\neviction petition in respect of the premises in question under Section
\n14(l)(b),(d) and (e) of the said Act against Murli Manohar Lal the tenant
\nand ML. Bhargava, the sub-tenant, the appellants are the legal
\nrepresentative of the said sub-tenant. The said M.L. Bhargava was the
\nbrother-in-law of the said tenant. The appellant case is, the sub-tenant
\nwas residing in the premises in question with his family since June, 1945
\nand with the consent of the landlord continued to reside therein even after
\nthe transfer of the said tenant Murli Manohar Lal from Delhi. On the other
\nhand landlord case is that the tenant had sub-let and parted with the
\npossession in favour of the said M.L. Bhargava without written permission
\nof the landlord. No notice as contemplated under Section 17 of the said Act
\nwas served by the sub-tenant on the landlord. Neither tenant nor any member
\nof his family is residing therein for a period of more than six months
\nbefore filing this eviction petition and the premise is required bona fide
\nfor personal need.\n<\/p>\n
The court of Rent Controller dismissed her eviction petition holding, since
\nthe landlady Smt. Rama Rani died during the pendency of eviction petition
\nhence question of bona fide need under Section 14(l)(e) does not survive.
\nFurther the said sub-tenant was in possession of the premises in question
\nsince before 9th June, 1952, he would be deemed sub-tenant under Section
\n16(1) of the Act, hence the case would not fall under Section 14(l)(b). For
\nthis reason, even ground under Section 14(l)(d), does not survive as the
\nsaid sub-tenant was a lawful sub-tenant under Section 16(1) of the said
\nAct.\n<\/p>\n
The landlord aggrieved by this filed an appeal before the Rent Control
\nTribunal which was dismissed by upholding the findings recorded by the Rent
\nController. Thereafter an appeal was preferred under Section 39 of the said
\nAct before the High Court. The High Court by means of the impugned judgment
\nallowed the appeal but confined the eviction decree against the tenant
\nunder Section 14(l)(d), on the ground that the tenant was not residing in
\nthe premises for a period of six months immediately before the date of
\nfiling of the eviction petition.\n<\/p>\n
This finding is challenged before us by the legal representatives of the
\noriginal sub-tenant.\n<\/p>\n
Learned senior counsel Mr. M.L. Verma for the appellant submits, High Court
\nerred in decreeing the eviction suit under Section 14(l)(d) in view of
\nconcurrent finding recorded by both the courts below that the appellant was
\na legally constituted sub-tenant by virtue of Section 16(1) of the said
\nAct. The first submission is, how can a lawful sub-tenant be evicted under
\nSection 14(l)(d) in view of the definition of ‘tenant’ under Section 2(1)
\nand provision of Section 16(1) of the said Act. Next it is submitted, once
\na tenant inducts a sub-tenant over the whole of the premises legally then
\nconsequently the tenant vacates the premises in question, thus eviction of
\nsub-tenant under section 14(l)(d) on the ground that tenant is not residing
\nfor a period more than six months preceding the application for eviction
\nwould not arise. A sub-tenant on these facts is not required to prove this
\nas admittedly a lawful sub-tenant is already in possession of the whole of
\nthe premises in question. If an interpretation contrary to this is done it
\nwill lead to absurdity which is impermissible under the principles of
\ninterpretation of statute. So far the first submission, reliance is placed
\non the definition of ‘tenant’ as defined under Section 2(1). Relevant
\nportion is quoted hereunder.\n<\/p>\n
“Section 2(1): “tenant” means any person by whom or on whose account or
\nbehalf the rent of any premises is, or, but for a special contract, would
\nbe, payable, and includes-\n<\/p>\n
(1) a sub-tenant………,<\/p>\n
Submission is, tenant includes a sub-tenant, hence even if sub-tenant is in
\npossession it would mean a tenant to be in possession hence it cannot be
\nsaid under Section 14(l)(d) that tenant has vacated the premises. Thus
\nquestion of tenant not residing in the premises in question for the last
\nsix months preceding making of an eviction petition would not arise, We
\nhave no hesitation to reject this submission. It is true a sub-tenant is
\nincluded within the definition of tenant but is for a purpose, for the
\nconferment of rights and obligations on such sub-tenant whereever statute
\nrequires under various provisions of an Act, of that which is conferred on
\na tenant. But this would have no application where statute itself treats
\nboth as two separate entities as incorporated both in Section 14(l)(b) and
\nSection 16,17 and 18 of the Act. When a tenant inducts a sub-tenant without
\nwritten consent of a landlord, he makes himself liable for eviction under
\nSection 14(l)(b). Can it be said, since such sub-tenant under the Act could
\nbe a tenant, no question of sub-tenancy arises? If he is equated as one
\nwith the tenant then they would never be evicted under the Act. Similarly
\nif this is true the question of deemed tenancy under Section 16(1) would
\nnever arise. Similar consequence would follow both under Sections 17 and 18
\nof the Act, unless both are treated as separate entity. No protection to a
\nsub-tenant would arise for his eviction in case of a decree against a
\ntenant. In other words, these provisions would be rendered meaningless.
\nThis submission is misconceived. These sections refer specifically inter se
\nrelationship between a tenant and a sub-tenant which cannot be termed as
\none and the same.\n<\/p>\n
Next it is submitted, since the sub-tenancy was created before 9th June,
\n1952 the appellant became a deemed tenant, i.e., a lawful sub-tenant which
\nhas been held both by the Rent Controller and the Rent Control Tribunal,
\nthus question of his eviction under Section 14(I)(d) would not arise.\n<\/p>\n
For appreciating this submission, reference to sections 16,17 and 18 are
\nnecessary which are quouted hereunder:\n<\/p>\n
“16. Restriction on sub-letting-(1) Where at any time before the 9th day of
\nJune, 1952, a tenant has sub-let the whole or any part of the premises and
\nthe sub-tenant is, at the commencement of this Act, in occupation of such
\npremises, then notwithstanding that the consent of the landlord was not
\nobtained for such sub-letting, the premises shall be deemed to have been
\nlawfully sub-let.\n<\/p>\n
(2) No premises which have been sub-let either in whole or in part on or
\nafter the 9th day of June, 1952, without obtaining the consent in writing
\nof the landlord, shall be deemed to have been lawfully sublet.\n<\/p>\n
(3) After the commencement of this Act, no tenant shall, without the
\nprevious consent in writing of the landlord<\/p>\n
(a)    sub-let the whole or any part of the premises held by him as a
\ntenant; or<\/p>\n
(b)    transfer or assign his rights in the tenancy or in any part thereof.\n<\/p>\n
(4)  No landlord shall claim or receive the payment of any sum as premium
\nor pugree or claim or receive any consideration whatsoever in cash or in
\nkind for giving his consent to the sub-letting of the whole or any part of
\nthe premises held by the tenant.\n<\/p>\n
17. Notice of creation and termination of sub-tenancy-(1) Where, after the
\ncommencement of this Act, any premises are sub-let either in whole or in
\npart by the tenant with the previous consent in writing of the landlord,
\nthe tenant or the sub-tenant to whom the premises are sub-let may, in the
\nprescribed manner, give notice to the landlord of the creation of the sub-
\ntenancy within one month of the date of such sub-letting and notify the
\ntermination of sub-tenancy within one month of such termination.\n<\/p>\n
(2)  Where, before the commencement of this Act, any premises have been
\nlawfully sub-let either in whole or in part by the tenant, or the tenant or
\nthe sub-tenant to whom the premises have been sub-let may, in the
\nprescribed manner, give notice to the landlord of the creation of the sub-
\ntenancy within six months of the commencement of this Act, and notify the
\ntermination of such sub-tenancy within one month of such termination.\n<\/p>\n
(3)  Where in any case mentioned in sub-section (2), the landlord contests
\nthat the premises were not lawfully sub-let and an application is made to
\nthe Controller in this behalf, either by the landlord or by the sub-tenant,
\nwithin two months of the date of the receipt of the notice of sub-letting
\nby the landlord or the issue of the notice by the tenant or the sub-tenant,
\nas the case may be, the Controller shall decide the dispute.\n<\/p>\n
18. Sub-tenant to be tenant in certain cases-(1) Where an order for
\neviction in respect of any premises is made under section 14 against a
\ntenant but not against a sub-tenant referred to in section 17 and of the
\nsub-tenancy has been given to the landlord, the sub-tenant shall, with
\neffect from the date of the order, be deemed to become a tenant holding
\ndirectly under the landlord in respect of the premises in his occupation on
\nthe same terms and conditions on which the tenant would have held from the
\nlandlord, if the tenancy had continued.\n<\/p>\n
(2) Where, before the commencement of this Act, the interest of a tenant in
\nrespect of any premises has been determined without determining the
\ninterest of any sub-tenant to whom the premises either in whole or in part
\nhad been lawfully sub-let, the sub-tenant shall, with effect from the date
\nof the commencement of this Act, be deemed to have become a tenant holding
\ndirectly under the landlord on the same terms and conditions on which the
\ntenant would have held from the landlord, if the tenancy had continued.”
\nThe submission is, once the appellants are lawful sub-tenants being deemed
\nsub-tenants by virtue of Sections 16(1), question of his giving any notice
\nunder Section 17 would not arise, so also Section 18 would have no
\napplication.\n<\/p>\n
On the other hand learned senior counsel for the respondent Mr. G.L. Sanghi
\nsubmits, if no notice is served by such a sub-tenant as contemplated under
\nSection 17(2), which has not been served as finally recorded in this case,
\nthe appellant could not resist a decree of eviction even if passed against
\na tenant. Unless such a notice is served, a decree against a tenant would
\nbind even a sub-tenant.\n<\/p>\n
We have given our due consideration of these submissions on behalf of both
\nthe parties. We find Section 16 refers to the restrictions of sub-letting.
\nIt classifies the cases of sub-letting into three categories. Sub-section
\n(1) of Section 16 refers to cases where a sub-tenant is inducted by a
\ntenant before 9th June 1952, without the consent of the landlord but is
\ndeemed to be a lawful if he is in occupation of such premises at the
\ncommencement of the Act. Sub-section (2) deals with cases where a sub-
\ntenant is inducted on or after the aforesaid date, and if it is without a
\nwritten consent of the landlord he is not treated to be a lawful sub-tenant
\nand sub-section (3) mandates a tenant, after the commencement of the Act,
\nnot to sub-let any premises without written consent of the landlord. The
\npresent case admittedly falls under sub-clause (1) of Section 16, under
\nwhich the appellant could claim to be a deemed sub-tenant. On one hand it
\nconfers on a sub-tenant a statutory right, on the other hand Section 17(2)
\ncast an obligation on such sub-tenant to serve a notice on a landlord.\n<\/p>\n
Thus the question which arises for our consideration is, whether by mere
\ndeclaration of a sub-tenant as deemed sub-tenant, could he resist his
\neviction, if it is against a tenant under Section 14 without performing the
\nobligation cast on him under Section 17(2). Sub-section (2) of Section 17
\nspells out, before the commencement of this Act if any premises have been
\nlawfully sub-let by the tenant in the prescribed manner, a sub-tenant is
\nobliged to give notice to the landlord of the creation of sub-tenancy with
\nsix months of the commencement of this Act. Though an attempt was made on
\nbehalf of the appellant before the courts below that such a notice was
\nserved on landlord but this has been disbelieved on facts by the courts
\nbelow. So, it cannot be disputed that no notice was served by the appellant
\non the landlord in terms of sub-section (2) of Section 17. Submission for
\nthe appellant is once a sub-tenant is a lawful sub-tenant by virtue of
\nSection 16(1), the notice under sub-section (2) of Section 17 would be a
\nmere formality which is procedural. Thus its non-compliance cannot take
\naway his substantive right created under Section 16(1). This submission
\nmisses the purpose for which this sub-section (2) of Section 17 is enacted.
\nOn performance of this obligation a right is conferred on a sub-tenant to
\nbecome a tenant under Section 18. This service of notice saves a sub-tenant
\nfrom eviction even if a decree of eviction is passed against a tenant under
\nSection 14 and further confers on such sub-tenant an independent right as
\nthat of a tenant. Thus notice under Section 17(2) cannot be construed as a
\nmere procedural, in fact it confers substantive right on such sub-tenant.
\nSo, a conjoint reading of Sections 16, 17 and 18 makes it clear that a sub-
\ntenant falling under Section 16(1) is deemed to be a lawful sub-tenant even
\nwithout written consent of the landlord. But Section 17(2) casts an
\nobligation on such sub-tenant to give notice to the landlord under sub-
\nclause (2), within six months of the commencement of the Act. The
\nlegislature has used in sub-section (2) the words “lawfully sub-let”. So
\neven if the appellant is a lawful sub-tenant by virtue of Section 16(1),
\nstill an obligation is cast on such lawful sub-tenant to serve a notice on
\nthe landlord for gaining a right under Section 18. This as we have said is
\nas a protective measure in favour of a sub-tenant. So, the submission that
\nby mere declaration as lawful tenant under Section 16(1), no decree for
\neviction is enforceable against the sub-tenant has no merit and is hereby
\nrejected. Hence we hold, unless notice under sub-section (2) of Section 17
\nis served by the sub-tenant, he cannot take the benefit of Section 18 and
\nany decree passed under Section 14 against a tenant is executable against a
\nsub-tenant.\n<\/p>\n
The next and the last submission is that the landlord was not only aware of
\nthe fact that it is not the tenant but the sub-tenant is residing
\nexclusively in whole of the premises, since before 9th June 19.52 and
\nlandlord was accepting the rent from this sub-tenant hence compliance of
\nSection 17(2) could at best be said to be a mere formality. This submission
\nhas also no merit. Neither there is any such finding by any courts nor any
\nevidence pointed out that after the tenant left, the rent was paid by the
\nsub-tenant on his own behalf and not on behalf of the tenant. A person in
\npossession may continue to live and continue to pay rent which would be
\npayment on behalf of the tenant, unless specific evidence led that the
\nincumbent in possession started paying rent as sub-tenant, receipt issued
\nas sub-tenant or there exist any document of this nature. We have not been
\nshown any such plea, evidence or any finding by any of the courts below in
\nthis regard.\n<\/p>\n
For the aforesaid reasons and for the findings recorded by us we find the
\npresent appeal has no merit and is accordingly dismissed. Costs on the
\nparties.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Kapil Bhargava (Mrs.) And Ors vs Subhash Chand Aggarwal And Ors on 21 August, 2001 Bench: A.P. Misra, U.C. Banerjee CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 5593 of 2001 PETITIONER: KAPIL BHARGAVA (MRS.) AND ORS. RESPONDENT: SUBHASH CHAND AGGARWAL AND ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 21\/08\/2001 BENCH: A.P. MISRA & U.C. BANERJEE JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT […]<\/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-223780","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nKapil Bhargava (Mrs.) And Ors vs Subhash Chand Aggarwal And Ors on 21 August, 2001 - 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\/kapil-bhargava-mrs-and-ors-vs-subhash-chand-aggarwal-and-ors-on-21-august-2001\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Kapil Bhargava (Mrs.) And Ors vs Subhash Chand Aggarwal And Ors on 21 August, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kapil-bhargava-mrs-and-ors-vs-subhash-chand-aggarwal-and-ors-on-21-august-2001\" \/>\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=\"2001-08-20T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-07-23T09:34:35+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=\"14 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kapil-bhargava-mrs-and-ors-vs-subhash-chand-aggarwal-and-ors-on-21-august-2001#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kapil-bhargava-mrs-and-ors-vs-subhash-chand-aggarwal-and-ors-on-21-august-2001\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Kapil Bhargava (Mrs.) And Ors vs Subhash Chand Aggarwal And Ors on 21 August, 2001\",\"datePublished\":\"2001-08-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-07-23T09:34:35+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kapil-bhargava-mrs-and-ors-vs-subhash-chand-aggarwal-and-ors-on-21-august-2001\"},\"wordCount\":2694,\"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\\\/kapil-bhargava-mrs-and-ors-vs-subhash-chand-aggarwal-and-ors-on-21-august-2001#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kapil-bhargava-mrs-and-ors-vs-subhash-chand-aggarwal-and-ors-on-21-august-2001\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kapil-bhargava-mrs-and-ors-vs-subhash-chand-aggarwal-and-ors-on-21-august-2001\",\"name\":\"Kapil Bhargava (Mrs.) And Ors vs Subhash Chand Aggarwal And Ors on 21 August, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2001-08-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-07-23T09:34:35+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kapil-bhargava-mrs-and-ors-vs-subhash-chand-aggarwal-and-ors-on-21-august-2001#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kapil-bhargava-mrs-and-ors-vs-subhash-chand-aggarwal-and-ors-on-21-august-2001\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kapil-bhargava-mrs-and-ors-vs-subhash-chand-aggarwal-and-ors-on-21-august-2001#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Kapil Bhargava (Mrs.) And Ors vs Subhash Chand Aggarwal And Ors on 21 August, 2001\"}]},{\"@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":"Kapil Bhargava (Mrs.) And Ors vs Subhash Chand Aggarwal And Ors on 21 August, 2001 - 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\/kapil-bhargava-mrs-and-ors-vs-subhash-chand-aggarwal-and-ors-on-21-august-2001","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Kapil Bhargava (Mrs.) And Ors vs Subhash Chand Aggarwal And Ors on 21 August, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kapil-bhargava-mrs-and-ors-vs-subhash-chand-aggarwal-and-ors-on-21-august-2001","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2001-08-20T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-07-23T09:34:35+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":"14 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kapil-bhargava-mrs-and-ors-vs-subhash-chand-aggarwal-and-ors-on-21-august-2001#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kapil-bhargava-mrs-and-ors-vs-subhash-chand-aggarwal-and-ors-on-21-august-2001"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Kapil Bhargava (Mrs.) And Ors vs Subhash Chand Aggarwal And Ors on 21 August, 2001","datePublished":"2001-08-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-07-23T09:34:35+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kapil-bhargava-mrs-and-ors-vs-subhash-chand-aggarwal-and-ors-on-21-august-2001"},"wordCount":2694,"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\/kapil-bhargava-mrs-and-ors-vs-subhash-chand-aggarwal-and-ors-on-21-august-2001#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kapil-bhargava-mrs-and-ors-vs-subhash-chand-aggarwal-and-ors-on-21-august-2001","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kapil-bhargava-mrs-and-ors-vs-subhash-chand-aggarwal-and-ors-on-21-august-2001","name":"Kapil Bhargava (Mrs.) And Ors vs Subhash Chand Aggarwal And Ors on 21 August, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2001-08-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-07-23T09:34:35+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kapil-bhargava-mrs-and-ors-vs-subhash-chand-aggarwal-and-ors-on-21-august-2001#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kapil-bhargava-mrs-and-ors-vs-subhash-chand-aggarwal-and-ors-on-21-august-2001"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kapil-bhargava-mrs-and-ors-vs-subhash-chand-aggarwal-and-ors-on-21-august-2001#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Kapil Bhargava (Mrs.) And Ors vs Subhash Chand Aggarwal And Ors on 21 August, 2001"}]},{"@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\/223780","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=223780"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/223780\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=223780"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=223780"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=223780"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}