{"id":22477,"date":"2009-11-05T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-11-04T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/renu-tiwari-vs-balbir-dub-on-5-november-2009"},"modified":"2016-07-03T23:33:06","modified_gmt":"2016-07-03T18:03:06","slug":"renu-tiwari-vs-balbir-dub-on-5-november-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/renu-tiwari-vs-balbir-dub-on-5-november-2009","title":{"rendered":"Renu Tiwari vs Balbir Dub on 5 November, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court<\/div>\n
Renu Tiwari vs Balbir Dub on 5 November, 2009<\/div>\n
Civil Revision No.1674 of 2007                             1\n\nIN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH\n\n                                              Civil Revision No.1674 of 2007\n\n                                              Date of Decision:05.11.2009\n\n\nRenu Tiwari\n\n                                                           .....Petitioner\n\n                                 versus\n\nBalbir Dub\n\n                                                            .....Respondent\n\n\nCORAM:        Hon'ble Mr.Justice Mehinder Singh Sullar.\n\n\nPresent:      Mr.Harsh Aggarwal, Advocate,\n              for the petitioner.\n\n              Mr.K.S.Dadwal, Advocate,\n              for the respondent.\n\n              ****\n\nMehinder Singh Sullar, J.\n<\/pre>\n
1.            Having lost the legal battle, petitioner-tenant-Renu Tiwari wife<\/p>\n
of Rakesh Tiwari (hereinafter to be referred as the tenant) has directed the<\/p>\n
present revision petition against the impugned order dated 10.01.2007 vide<\/p>\n
which the Rent Controller has accepted the ejectment petition under<\/p>\n
Section 13-B of the East Punjab Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter to<\/p>\n
be referred as “the Act”) filed by Balbir Dub son of Sohan Lal Dub-<\/p>\n
respondent-landlord (hereinafter to be referred as the landlord).<\/p>\n
2.            The matrix of the facts culminating in the commencement,<\/p>\n
relevant for disposal, of the present revision petition and emanating from<\/p>\n
the record is, that originally the landlord filed a petition for the ejectment of<\/p>\n
the tenant from the demised premises invoking the special provisions of<\/p>\n
Section 13-B of the Act, inter alia, pleading that he is its owner\/landlord. It<\/p>\n
was rented out to the tenant vide agreement dated 30.09.2005 for a period
\n Civil Revision No.1674 of 2007                             2<\/span><\/p>\n
of 11 months which had also expired on 31.07.2006. As per agreement, he<\/p>\n
sent a notice to the tenant.\n<\/p>\n
3.           The case set up by the landlord in brief insofar as relevant was<\/p>\n
that he is a Non-Resident-Indian and had gone abroad for his settlement.<\/p>\n
He is residing in Manila along with his wife and two children having foreign<\/p>\n
passports. He also possesses immigration certificate duly issued by the<\/p>\n
authorities of Republic of Philippines. Thus, he falls within the definition of<\/p>\n
an NRI and also a member of NRI Sabha, Punjab.                 He requires the<\/p>\n
demised property\/shop for his own bona fide use as he wants to settle in<\/p>\n
India and start his business of Readymade Garments.\n<\/p>\n
4.           Leveling a variety of allegations in all, according to the<\/p>\n
landlord, he is an NRI and required the demised property for his own<\/p>\n
personal requirement and is entitled to recover the possession under<\/p>\n
Section 13-B of the Act. On the basis of aforesaid allegations, the landlord<\/p>\n
filed the eviction petition against the tenant in the manner indicated<\/p>\n
hereinabove.\n<\/p>\n
5.           Having completed all the codal formalities, the Rent Controller<\/p>\n
summoned the tenant. As soon as the tenant appeared, in the meantime,<\/p>\n
she filed an application for leave to contest the ejectment petition, inter alia,<\/p>\n
pleading that the grounds for ejectment set-forth by the landlord are false<\/p>\n
and he has not come to the Court with clean hands. According to the<\/p>\n
tenant that the landlord is not a Non-Resident-Indian and is only a visitor to<\/p>\n
Philippines, he owns other residential building and shop in the same area,<\/p>\n
so much so, the tenant has denied the ownership of the landlord as the<\/p>\n
demised premises is stated to be already sold by him. In all according to<\/p>\n
the tenant, the landlord is neither a specified landlord (NRI) nor his<\/p>\n
requirement\/need is bona fide. That being so, the tenant prayed that she<\/p>\n
be granted leave to contest the ejectment petition. She has also filed an<\/p>\n
affidavit in support of the application.\n<\/p>\n
 Civil Revision No.1674 of 2007                           3<\/span><\/p>\n
6.          Controverting the allegations contained in the aforesaid<\/p>\n
application of the tenant and reiterating the pleadings contained his original<\/p>\n
ejectment petition, the landlord filed reply and prayed for dismissal of the<\/p>\n
application for permission to leave to defend the ejectment petition.<\/p>\n
However, the landlord clarified that the other shops are not suitable for his<\/p>\n
business.\n<\/p>\n
7.          The Rent Controller dismissed the application for leave to<\/p>\n
contest, filed by the tenant and accepted the ejectment petition of the<\/p>\n
landlord under Section 13-B of the Act and directed the tenant to hand over<\/p>\n
the vacant possession of the demised premises to him(landlord) within two<\/p>\n
months vide impugned order dated 10.01.2007.\n<\/p>\n
8.          The tenant did not feel satisfied with the composite impugned<\/p>\n
ejectment order and filed the present revision petition. That is how I am<\/p>\n
seized of the matter.\n<\/p>\n
9.           Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, having gone<\/p>\n
through the record of the case and after bestowal of thoughts over the<\/p>\n
entire matter, to my mind, as there is no merit, therefore, the present<\/p>\n
revision petition deserves to be dismissed for the reasons mentioned<\/p>\n
herein below.\n<\/p>\n
10.         Admittedly, the landlord filed the ejectment petition against the<\/p>\n
tenant invoking the special provisions under Section 13-B of the Act which<\/p>\n
postulates that wherein an owner is a Non-Resident-Indian and returns to<\/p>\n
India and the residential building or scheduled building and\/or non-<\/p>\n
residential building, as the case may be, let out by him or her, is required<\/p>\n
for his or her use, or for the use of any one ordinarily living with and<\/p>\n
dependent on him or her, he or she, may apply to the Controller for<\/p>\n
immediate possession of such building or buildings, as the case may be.<\/p>\n
Provided that a right to apply in respect of such a building under this<\/p>\n
Section, shall be available only after a period of five years from the date of
\n Civil Revision No.1674 of 2007                             4<\/span><\/p>\n
becoming the owner of such a building and shall be available only once<\/p>\n
during the life time of such an owner. Sub-clause 2 further posits that<\/p>\n
where the owner has let out more than one residential building or<\/p>\n
scheduled building and\/or non-residential building, it shall be open to him<\/p>\n
or her to make an application under that sub-section in respect of only one<\/p>\n
residential building or one scheduled building and\/or one non-residential<\/p>\n
building, each chosen by him or her. Meaning thereby, the legislature has<\/p>\n
conferred a statutory right on such NRIs to immediately recover the<\/p>\n
possession from their tenants once in a life.\n<\/p>\n
11.          The main point urged by learned counsel for the tenant which<\/p>\n
require adjudication is that whether the landlord is not proved to be an NRI<\/p>\n
and the Rent Controller committed an illegality in applying Section 13-B of<\/p>\n
the Act and ordering the ejectment of the tenant or not. To me, it would be<\/p>\n
expedient to have the definition of NRI at this stage, to resolve this<\/p>\n
controversy. Section 2(dd) of the Act defines “Non-Resident-Indian” means<\/p>\n
a person of Indian origin, who is either permanently or temporarily settled<\/p>\n
outside India in either case–for or on taking up employment outside India;<\/p>\n
or for carrying on a business or vocation outside India; or for any other<\/p>\n
purpose, in such circumstances, as would indicate his intention to stay<\/p>\n
outside India for a uncertain period. It means a person will be deemed to<\/p>\n
be a Non-Resident-Indian for the purpose of this Act who is either<\/p>\n
permanently or temporarily settled outside India in either case, for or on<\/p>\n
taking up employment outside India or for carrying on a business or<\/p>\n
vocation outside India or for any other purpose, in such circumstances, as<\/p>\n
is indicated his intention to stay outside India for uncertain period.<\/p>\n
12.          Such, thus being the legal position now the short and<\/p>\n
significant question though important arises for determination in this case is<\/p>\n
whether there is sufficient material to substantiate that the landlord was a<\/p>\n
specified landlord (NRI) or not in this respect. A bare perusal of the record
\n Civil Revision No.1674 of 2007                           5<\/span><\/p>\n
would go to show that the landlord in order to prove that he is an NRI, has<\/p>\n
brought on record copy of his Alien Registration Certificate, Testimony<\/p>\n
Residence Certificate, NRI Sabha Identity Card issued by the NRI Sabha,<\/p>\n
Jalandhar, Republic of India passport issued by the Indian Embassy in<\/p>\n
Manila, Philippines, copy of the passports of his son Julebar Dub and<\/p>\n
daughter Baljit Kaur Dub.\n<\/p>\n
13.           However, learned counsel for the tenant has contended with<\/p>\n
some amount of vehemence that no implicit reliance can be placed on<\/p>\n
Alien Registration Certificate\/Residence Certificate as his stay was for a<\/p>\n
specific period and not for uncertain period and the Residence Certificate<\/p>\n
which was issued to the landlord as visitors only and, thus, the landlord<\/p>\n
cannot be termed as an NRI as such.\n<\/p>\n
14.           The argument at the first instance appeared very attractive but<\/p>\n
when the same was scrutinized in relation to the evidence on record then I<\/p>\n
cannot help observing that the same is not only devoid of merit but<\/p>\n
misplaced as well because a bare perusal of Alien Certificate of<\/p>\n
Registration issued by the Department of Justice Bureau of Immigration,<\/p>\n
Manila would reveal that landlord-Balbir Dub, a citizen of India has been<\/p>\n
registered pursuant to the provisions of Section 4 of the Alien Registration<\/p>\n
Act, 1950 (RA 562)       as amended.     His date and place of birth was<\/p>\n
described as 04.10.1969 at Jalandhar. His civil status was also depicted as<\/p>\n
married and name of his spouse is Jelyn Burgos Dub. The occupation of<\/p>\n
the landlord has also been depicted as business.        Date and status of<\/p>\n
admission is Adm. Mla 08.03.1994 as 9a. No doubt, as per note appended<\/p>\n
thereto,(his Adm. status changed from 9a to Sec.13a approved by the BOC<\/p>\n
dated 03.12.2001), his stay was upto 03.12.2002 and sequelly, it is<\/p>\n
mentioned in the Residence Certificate that it was issued to the visitors on<\/p>\n
03.12.2001.      These notes incorporated in these certificates were<\/p>\n
mentioned at that point of time but it stands proved on record that the
\n Civil Revision No.1674 of 2007                           6<\/span><\/p>\n
landlord stayed and lived there with his family till he returned to settle in<\/p>\n
India.\n<\/p>\n
15.         Thus, it is proved on record that the landlord was admitted on<\/p>\n
08.03.1994 as a businessman in Alien Certificate of Registration and<\/p>\n
Certificate of Residence was issued to him on 03.12.2001 coupled with his<\/p>\n
affidavit wherein he has stated that he is an NRI and has gone abroad for<\/p>\n
settlement and residing in Manila and two children were born and residing<\/p>\n
there having foreign passports issued by the authorities of Philippines are<\/p>\n
sufficient to prove his NRI status. Since it stands proved on record that the<\/p>\n
aforementioned certificates were issued to the landlord at that point of time<\/p>\n
and as he resided in Manila with his family, thereafter, till he returned to<\/p>\n
settle in India so the alleged notes described in the certificates recorded at<\/p>\n
the time of issuance would not come to the rescue of the tenant and<\/p>\n
cannot, in any way, affect his status as NRI as urged on behalf of the<\/p>\n
tenant.\n<\/p>\n
16.         The matter did not rest there. Not only that the landlord has<\/p>\n
produced the Alien Certificate and Certificate of Residence issued by the<\/p>\n
Philippines authorities, he has also produced on record NRI Sabha Identity<\/p>\n
Card issued by the NRI Sabha, Jalandhar, his Republic of India passport<\/p>\n
issued by the Indian Embassy in Manila, Philippines, copy of the passports<\/p>\n
of his son Julebar Dub and daughter Baljit Kaur Dub issued by the<\/p>\n
Republic of Philippines, where they were shown to be Filipino national.<\/p>\n
Moreover, his wife is also residing in Philippines.     Hence, if the entire<\/p>\n
contents of the documents mentioned hereinabove are put together then<\/p>\n
conclusion is inescapable that it stands proved on the record that the status<\/p>\n
of the landlord squarely covered under the definition of Section 2(dd) of<\/p>\n
the Act.\n<\/p>\n
17.         Thus, it would be seen that it stands proved on record that the<\/p>\n
landlord is a person of Indian origin and settled outside India where he was
\n Civil Revision No.1674 of 2007                             7<\/span><\/p>\n
described as businessman and his family is residing there. Once that is so<\/p>\n
proved on record, then it cannot possibly be saith that the landlord is not an<\/p>\n
NRI as urged by the learned counsel for the tenant. Therefore, in my view,<\/p>\n
the Rent Controller has rightly recorded a finding based on the cogent<\/p>\n
material consistent with his statement contained in the application under<\/p>\n
Section 13-B of the Act and affidavit that the landlord is an NRI as<\/p>\n
contemplated under Section 2(dd) of the Act. Hence, the contrary<\/p>\n
arguments of the learned counsel for the tenant ‘stricto-sensu’ deserve to<\/p>\n
be and are hereby repelled in the obtaining circumstances of the case.<\/p>\n
18.          Faced with the situation, another feeble argument of the<\/p>\n
learned counsel for the tenant that since the landlord has not produced any<\/p>\n
material about the nature of work to be started by him in the shop in<\/p>\n
dispute and that he owned other shops in Urban Estate, Jalandhar,<\/p>\n
therefore, his requirement is not bona fide, again has no force. Because<\/p>\n
the landlord has specifically pleaded that he is a Non-Resident-Indian,<\/p>\n
required the demised property\/shop for his own bona fide use as he wants<\/p>\n
to settle in India to start his business of Readymade Garments. Moreover,<\/p>\n
he has clarified in his reply to the application filed by the tenant for leave to<\/p>\n
contest the petition that the remaining shops are far away from Kapurthala<\/p>\n
road where the shop in question is located. The shop in question is ideally<\/p>\n
suited for opening the business of Readymade Garments. Furthermore,<\/p>\n
Section 13-B of the Act confer a special right on the landlord to get atleast<\/p>\n
one building of his own choice vacated. Under these circumstances, it<\/p>\n
cannot possibly be saith that the requirement of the landlord is not bona<\/p>\n
fide. So, in this view of categoric stand of the landlord, non-mentioning of<\/p>\n
other particulars pales into insignificance in this respect.<\/p>\n
19.          Moreover, to my mind, the landlord is not strictly required to<\/p>\n
prove bona fide requirement as contained under Section 13 of the Act and<\/p>\n
underlying legislative intent indicated in Section 13-B of the Act.         The
\n Civil Revision No.1674 of 2007                            8<\/span><\/p>\n
legislative intent for setting up of a special procedure for NRI-landlord is<\/p>\n
obvious and distinct from general provision of bona fide requirement under<\/p>\n
Section 13 of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
20.         According to Section 18-A of the Act, the Controller to take up<\/p>\n
the matter on day-to-day basis till the conclusion of the hearing of the<\/p>\n
ejectment petition. The decision of the Controller to be final and does not<\/p>\n
provide any appeal or second appeal against the order of eviction.           A<\/p>\n
specified landlord (NRI) is permitted to file an application for ejectment only<\/p>\n
once during his life time.    Sub-section (3) of Section 13-B of the Act<\/p>\n
imposes a restriction that he shall not transfer it through sale or any other<\/p>\n
means or lease out the ejected premises before the expiry of a period of<\/p>\n
five years from the date of taking possession of the said building.<\/p>\n
21.         Not only that if there is a breach of any of the condition, the<\/p>\n
tenant is given right of restoration of possession of the said building and if<\/p>\n
the landlord let out the building or any portion to any other person except<\/p>\n
the evicted tenant and on any contravention thereof he shall be liable for<\/p>\n
punishment of imprisonment for a term which can be extended upto six<\/p>\n
months. These restrictions and conditions inculcate inbuilt strong<\/p>\n
presumption that the need of the landlord is genuine.         Moreover, such<\/p>\n
statement made by the specified landlord shall be deemed to be admitted<\/p>\n
by the tenant in view of legal provisions contained in Section (4) of Section<\/p>\n
18-A of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
22.         An identical question arose for determination before Hon’ble<\/p>\n
Apex Court in case titled as Baldev Singh Bajwa Versus Monish Saini,<\/p>\n
2005(2) RCR 470. Having interpreted the definition of NRI contained under<\/p>\n
Section 2(dd) of the Act, provisions of Sections 13-B, 19(2-B), 18-A and<\/p>\n
other relevant provisions of the Act, it has authoritatively been held that<\/p>\n
under such circumstances, the landlord would be NRI (specified landlord)<\/p>\n
and his need cannot be termed as not bona fide unless a strong case is
\n Civil Revision No.1674 of 2007                          9<\/span><\/p>\n
made out in this respect. Learned counsel for the tenant miserably failed to<\/p>\n
point out how and in what manner the need of the landlord is not genuine<\/p>\n
as contemplated under Section 13-B of the Act. To me, the Rent Controller<\/p>\n
has rightly negatives these contentions of the tenant vide the impugned<\/p>\n
order. Therefore, no fault could be found with the impugned order which is<\/p>\n
hereby affirmed particularly when it is now well-settled proposition of law<\/p>\n
that it is not the province of this Court to dislodge the finding based on<\/p>\n
material recorded by the Rent Controller unless the same is perverse,<\/p>\n
arbitrary and without jurisdiction. No such irregularity or patent illegality<\/p>\n
has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the tenant in the impugned<\/p>\n
order.\n<\/p>\n
23.         No other point worth consideration has been urged or pressed<\/p>\n
by the learned counsel for the parties.\n<\/p>\n
24.         In the light of the aforesaid reasons, as there is no merit,<\/p>\n
therefore, the present petition is hereby dismissed with no order as to<\/p>\n
costs.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
November 05, 2009                                 ( Mehinder Singh Sullar)\nseema                                                    Judge\n Civil Revision No.1674 of 2007   10<\/span>\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court Renu Tiwari vs Balbir Dub on 5 November, 2009 Civil Revision No.1674 of 2007 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.1674 of 2007 Date of Decision:05.11.2009 Renu Tiwari …..Petitioner versus Balbir Dub …..Respondent CORAM: Hon’ble Mr.Justice Mehinder Singh Sullar. Present: Mr.Harsh Aggarwal, Advocate, for the […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,28],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-22477","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-punjab-haryana-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nRenu Tiwari vs Balbir Dub on 5 November, 2009 - 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\/renu-tiwari-vs-balbir-dub-on-5-november-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Renu Tiwari vs Balbir Dub on 5 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/renu-tiwari-vs-balbir-dub-on-5-november-2009\" \/>\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=\"2009-11-04T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-07-03T18:03:06+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\\\/renu-tiwari-vs-balbir-dub-on-5-november-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/renu-tiwari-vs-balbir-dub-on-5-november-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Renu Tiwari vs Balbir Dub on 5 November, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-11-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-07-03T18:03:06+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/renu-tiwari-vs-balbir-dub-on-5-november-2009\"},\"wordCount\":2690,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Punjab-Haryana High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/renu-tiwari-vs-balbir-dub-on-5-november-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/renu-tiwari-vs-balbir-dub-on-5-november-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/renu-tiwari-vs-balbir-dub-on-5-november-2009\",\"name\":\"Renu Tiwari vs Balbir Dub on 5 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-11-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-07-03T18:03:06+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/renu-tiwari-vs-balbir-dub-on-5-november-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/renu-tiwari-vs-balbir-dub-on-5-november-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/renu-tiwari-vs-balbir-dub-on-5-november-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Renu Tiwari vs Balbir Dub on 5 November, 2009\"}]},{\"@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":"Renu Tiwari vs Balbir Dub on 5 November, 2009 - 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\/renu-tiwari-vs-balbir-dub-on-5-november-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Renu Tiwari vs Balbir Dub on 5 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/renu-tiwari-vs-balbir-dub-on-5-november-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-11-04T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-07-03T18:03:06+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\/renu-tiwari-vs-balbir-dub-on-5-november-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/renu-tiwari-vs-balbir-dub-on-5-november-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Renu Tiwari vs Balbir Dub on 5 November, 2009","datePublished":"2009-11-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-07-03T18:03:06+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/renu-tiwari-vs-balbir-dub-on-5-november-2009"},"wordCount":2690,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Punjab-Haryana High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/renu-tiwari-vs-balbir-dub-on-5-november-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/renu-tiwari-vs-balbir-dub-on-5-november-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/renu-tiwari-vs-balbir-dub-on-5-november-2009","name":"Renu Tiwari vs Balbir Dub on 5 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-11-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-07-03T18:03:06+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/renu-tiwari-vs-balbir-dub-on-5-november-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/renu-tiwari-vs-balbir-dub-on-5-november-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/renu-tiwari-vs-balbir-dub-on-5-november-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Renu Tiwari vs Balbir Dub on 5 November, 2009"}]},{"@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\/22477","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=22477"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/22477\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=22477"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=22477"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=22477"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}