{"id":227437,"date":"2010-01-05T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-01-04T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abilash-vs-a-a-rajandha-pai-on-5-january-2010"},"modified":"2014-05-29T17:23:26","modified_gmt":"2014-05-29T11:53:26","slug":"abilash-vs-a-a-rajandha-pai-on-5-january-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abilash-vs-a-a-rajandha-pai-on-5-january-2010","title":{"rendered":"Abilash vs A.A. Rajandha Pai on 5 January, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Abilash vs A.A. Rajandha Pai on 5 January, 2010<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nRCRev..No. 55 of 2009()\n\n\n1. ABILASH, S\/O. JOSE,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. A.A. RAJANDHA PAI, S\/O. A.R.\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.BASIL MATHEW\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.S.B.PREMACHANDRA PRABHU\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice C.K.ABDUL REHIM\n\n Dated :05\/01\/2010\n\n O R D E R\n      C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ.\n                     ----------------------------------\n\n                     R.C.REV. NO. 55 of 2009\n\n                     ----------------------------------\n\n                Dated this the 5th day of January, 2010\n\n\nAbdul Rehim,J.\n\n                               O R D E R\n<\/pre>\n
      1.     The Revision Petition is filed by the tenant against<\/p>\n
concurrent findings of eviction ordered under Section 11(3) of<\/p>\n
the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965<\/p>\n
(hereinafter called the Act for short). The Rent Control petition<\/p>\n
was filed seeking eviction under Section 11(2)(b), 11(3) and 11<\/p>\n
(4)(iii) of the Act. The Rent Control Court ordered eviction both<\/p>\n
under Section 11(2)(b) and 11(3). But thereafter the entire rent<\/p>\n
arrears was paid and hence the challenge against the order of<\/p>\n
eviction under Section 1(2)(b) was not pressed in the appeal.<\/p>\n
Therefore the revision petitioner\/tenant is assailing the order of<\/p>\n
eviction issued under Section 11(3) which is confirmed in appeal.<\/p>\n
      2.     A brief narration of these facts is as follows. The<\/p>\n
petition schedule building was occupied by the tenant on<\/p>\n
3.3.2004 for a period of 11 months agreeing to pay monthly rent<\/p>\n
@ Rs.2000\/-.      The period of tenancy expired on 2.1.2005.<\/p>\n
Landlord is conducting wholesale and retail business of grocery<\/p>\n
in another building at Main road, Tripunithura. Due to traffic<\/p>\n
RCR.55\/09-D                      2<\/span><\/p>\n
problems there is difficulty to unload goods in front of that shop<\/p>\n
and the space available therein is too insufficient. Therefore the<\/p>\n
landlord wanted to shift the wholesale business to the petition<\/p>\n
schedule building which can be conducted therein in a<\/p>\n
convenient manner. He had not accepted rent after January<\/p>\n
2005. But, inspite of sending two registered letters requesting<\/p>\n
the tenant to surrender the building, the tenant had neither<\/p>\n
surrendered the building nor replied. A lawyer notice caused in<\/p>\n
this regard was not responded by the tenant. The tenant and his<\/p>\n
father have another building in their possession reasonably<\/p>\n
sufficient for their requirement.    Hence the landlord sought<\/p>\n
eviction under Section 11(3)(b), 11(3) and 11(4)(iii) of the Act.<\/p>\n
      3.   The tenant had resisted the petition mainly disputing<\/p>\n
the contention that the tenancy was for a period of 11 months.<\/p>\n
According to the tenant the tenancy as agreed was for a period<\/p>\n
of 5 years. But inspite of repeated requests the landlord had not<\/p>\n
executed lease agreement. The premises was taken on lease on<\/p>\n
the specific understanding that the tenant will be permitted to do<\/p>\n
necessary alterations and renovations for making it suitable for<\/p>\n
his requirement.    Accordingly the tenant had done a lot of<\/p>\n
alterations and improvements, by spending an amount of Rs.3<\/p>\n
lakhs. The landlord had postponed execution of lease agreement<\/p>\n
with an idea to get eviction of the tenant with an intention to<\/p>\n
RCR.55\/09-D                     3<\/span><\/p>\n
lease out the premises to some other persons. It is denied that<\/p>\n
the landlord is doing wholesale business at his shop at Main road<\/p>\n
Tripunithura. There is only retail business and the premises is<\/p>\n
having sufficient space of about 1500 Sq: Ft: Further the 1st and<\/p>\n
2nd floors of that building is lying vacant.     According to the<\/p>\n
tenant sufficient parking space is available in front of that<\/p>\n
building. There is no building in the possession of the tenant<\/p>\n
and his father, as alleged.        The landlord had demanded<\/p>\n
exorbitant increase in rent after a period of one year. But the<\/p>\n
tenant requested for execution of lease deed, which was not<\/p>\n
accepted. It is contended that after receipt of the lawyer notice<\/p>\n
there was mediation and landlord had agreed to refrain from<\/p>\n
legal action.\n<\/p>\n
      4.   Evidence in the case contains oral testimony of the<\/p>\n
landlord as PW1 and Exts.A1 to A14(a) were marked on his<\/p>\n
behalf. From the respondent’s side RW1 and 2 were examined<\/p>\n
and Ext.B1 to B7(i) were marked.\n<\/p>\n
      5.   While considering the issue of eviction under Section<\/p>\n
11(3), the trial court found that, inspite of production of certain<\/p>\n
documents there is no convincing proof adduced by the tenant in<\/p>\n
order to substantiate the contention that he had spent an amount<\/p>\n
of Rs.3 lakhs for alteration and renovation of building in<\/p>\n
question. With respect to the period of tenancy the Rent Control<\/p>\n
RCR.55\/09-D                       4<\/span><\/p>\n
Court found that in Ext.A1 letter issued by the tenant it is<\/p>\n
acknowledged that he had occupied the petition schedule<\/p>\n
building for a period of 11 months.        Further inspite of the<\/p>\n
specific recitals in Exts.A5 and A6 letters, issued by the landlord,<\/p>\n
to the effect that the period of 11 months have lapsed and the<\/p>\n
tenant is liable to be vacated, there was no reply from the side of<\/p>\n
the tenant refuting such an allegation. It is also found that there<\/p>\n
was no response from the side of the tenant with respect to the<\/p>\n
demand raised through Ext.A8 lawyer notice. While considering<\/p>\n
genuineness and bonafides of the need projected, the trial court<\/p>\n
found that, PW1 when examined had categorically explained<\/p>\n
about his needs. The father of the tenant who was examined as<\/p>\n
RW2 admitted that the landlord is one among the leading<\/p>\n
grocery dealer in Tripunithura. The Rent Control Court found<\/p>\n
that from the photographs produced by the landlord, which<\/p>\n
eventhough is not properly proved, there is evidence to the<\/p>\n
effect that heavy traffic congestion is there in front of the<\/p>\n
premises wherein the landlord is doing business. The trial court<\/p>\n
also found that the 1st and 2nd floors of the building wherein the<\/p>\n
landlord is conducting business, does not belong to him, and that<\/p>\n
he is not in possession of those rooms. Having found the need<\/p>\n
urged by the landlord as genuine, the trial court looked into the<\/p>\n
aspect of 2nd proviso to Section 11(3). It is found that the tenant<\/p>\n
RCR.55\/09-D                      5<\/span><\/p>\n
has not raised any case under the 2nd proviso nor had adduced<\/p>\n
any evidence to prove that the business in question is the only<\/p>\n
source of livelihood.      Further he had failed to prove the<\/p>\n
ingredients regarding non-availability of any suitable building in<\/p>\n
the locality.   Hence the Rent Control Court found that the<\/p>\n
bonafide need projected by the landlord is genuine and that<\/p>\n
eviction is liable to be ordered under the ground in Section 11<\/p>\n
(3). Since the landlord was not successful in proving availability<\/p>\n
of another building in the possession of the tenant, the ground<\/p>\n
urged under Section 11(4)(iii) was not allowed.<\/p>\n
     6.    In appeal filed by tenant the Rent Control Appellate<\/p>\n
Authority had confirmed the order of eviction under Section 11<\/p>\n
(3). After analyzing evidence on record, the appellate authority<\/p>\n
found that the premises wherein the landlord is now conducting<\/p>\n
business is situated in an area where there is heavy traffic and<\/p>\n
the road therein is used only as one-way, and there is non-<\/p>\n
availability of sufficient parking space.   It is further found that<\/p>\n
the need urged for starting wholesale business at the schedule<\/p>\n
premises is genuine, since the schedule premises is suitable for<\/p>\n
conducting wholesale business in grocery. Further it is found<\/p>\n
that as per settled legal position it is the privilege of landlord to<\/p>\n
choose the nature of business to be conducted at the premises<\/p>\n
and the tenant is not entitled to dictate terms regarding the<\/p>\n
RCR.55\/09-D                      6<\/span><\/p>\n
manner in which business has to be conducted. It is found that<\/p>\n
the tenant had failed in proving possession of any other suitable<\/p>\n
building by the landlord. Further it is found that, the evidence of<\/p>\n
RW2, who is the father of the tenant is to the effect that, he is<\/p>\n
running a business in the main road and the tenant is running a<\/p>\n
parallel college in the upstair portion of that building. Therefore<\/p>\n
it could not be found that the tenant is depending solely on the<\/p>\n
income derived from the business conducted in the schedule<\/p>\n
building, and therefore he is not entitled to protection under the<\/p>\n
2nd proviso of Section 11(3). From the evidence on record the<\/p>\n
appellate authority found that the contention regarding spending<\/p>\n
of Rs.3 lakhs for alterations and renovations is not proved and on<\/p>\n
the other hand from Ext.A1 it is evident that the tenant had paid<\/p>\n
only an amount of Rs.1,25,000\/- as advance. Therefore on an<\/p>\n
overall appreciation of evidence, the appellate authority has<\/p>\n
confirmed the order of eviction under Section 11(3).<\/p>\n
     7.    Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner<\/p>\n
as well as counsel appearing for the respondent.              It is<\/p>\n
vehemently contended by the revision petitioner that the period<\/p>\n
of lease was for 5 years and only on that specific understanding<\/p>\n
he had spent the amount of Rs.3 lakhs for renovations, alteration<\/p>\n
and improvement of the building. On that basis the tenant is not<\/p>\n
liable to be evicted before expiry of 5 years. But we do not find<\/p>\n
RCR.55\/09-D                      7<\/span><\/p>\n
any misappreciation of evidence either by the trial court or by<\/p>\n
the appellate authority in this regard. As stated above, inspite of<\/p>\n
contention raised regarding expenditure of an amount of Rs.3<\/p>\n
lakhs, the tenant could not prove the same through any<\/p>\n
convincing evidence or he could prove that there was any<\/p>\n
understanding between the parties that the tenancy is for a<\/p>\n
period of 5 years.     On the other hand, evidence on record<\/p>\n
revealed that there is direct and indirect admissions on the part<\/p>\n
of tenant that the tenancy was only for a period of 11 months.<\/p>\n
We do not find any specific reason to interfere with the findings<\/p>\n
on fact in this regard, sitting in the attenuated jurisdiction of<\/p>\n
revisional power under Section 20 of the Act. Eventhough a<\/p>\n
feeble attempt was made from the side of the revision petitioner<\/p>\n
to dispute genuineness of the need projected, he is not in a<\/p>\n
position to bring to the notice of this Court about any convincing<\/p>\n
evidence adduced to shake credibility of the evidence adduced<\/p>\n
on behalf of the landlord in this regard. Contention raised with<\/p>\n
respect to 2nd proviso of Section 11(3), we are unable to find any<\/p>\n
convincing reasons for interfering with the findings of the courts<\/p>\n
below. Therefore the revision petition does not deserve merit<\/p>\n
and is liable to be dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
     8.    However as a last resort, the learned counsel for the<\/p>\n
revision petitioner sought indulgence of this Court for granting 9<\/p>\n
RCR.55\/09-D                     8<\/span><\/p>\n
months time for him to vacate the tenanted premises, which<\/p>\n
request was vehemently opposed by the counsel appearing on<\/p>\n
behalf of the respondent landlord. On considering the entire<\/p>\n
facts and circumstances of the case we are inclined to grant time<\/p>\n
upto 31st of March 2010, on condition of the revision<\/p>\n
petitioner\/tenant executing an affidavit before the execution<\/p>\n
court undertaking to handover peaceful and vacant possession of<\/p>\n
the tenanted premises to the landlord, before 31.3.2010 and also<\/p>\n
pays arrears of rent if any due and further continues to pay the<\/p>\n
rent falling due till such time. The affidavit as above need be<\/p>\n
filed within 3 weeks from today. If the executing court take note<\/p>\n
of such an affidavit and is being convinced of payment of rent if<\/p>\n
any in arrears, the eviction of the revision petitioner from the<\/p>\n
tenanted premises shall be deferred till 1.4.2010.<\/p>\n
      The Rent Control Revision is disposed of as above.<\/p>\n
                         C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                               C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE.\n<\/p>\n
okb<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Abilash vs A.A. Rajandha Pai on 5 January, 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM RCRev..No. 55 of 2009() 1. ABILASH, S\/O. JOSE, … Petitioner Vs 1. A.A. RAJANDHA PAI, S\/O. A.R. … Respondent For Petitioner :SRI.BASIL MATHEW For Respondent :SRI.S.B.PREMACHANDRA PRABHU The Hon’ble MR. Justice C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR The Hon’ble […]<\/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":[8,21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-227437","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nAbilash vs A.A. Rajandha Pai on 5 January, 2010 - 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\/abilash-vs-a-a-rajandha-pai-on-5-january-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Abilash vs A.A. Rajandha Pai on 5 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abilash-vs-a-a-rajandha-pai-on-5-january-2010\" \/>\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=\"2010-01-04T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-05-29T11:53:26+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=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/abilash-vs-a-a-rajandha-pai-on-5-january-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/abilash-vs-a-a-rajandha-pai-on-5-january-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Abilash vs A.A. Rajandha Pai on 5 January, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-01-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-05-29T11:53:26+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/abilash-vs-a-a-rajandha-pai-on-5-january-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1786,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Kerala High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/abilash-vs-a-a-rajandha-pai-on-5-january-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/abilash-vs-a-a-rajandha-pai-on-5-january-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/abilash-vs-a-a-rajandha-pai-on-5-january-2010\",\"name\":\"Abilash vs A.A. Rajandha Pai on 5 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-01-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-05-29T11:53:26+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/abilash-vs-a-a-rajandha-pai-on-5-january-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/abilash-vs-a-a-rajandha-pai-on-5-january-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/abilash-vs-a-a-rajandha-pai-on-5-january-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Abilash vs A.A. Rajandha Pai on 5 January, 2010\"}]},{\"@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":"Abilash vs A.A. Rajandha Pai on 5 January, 2010 - 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\/abilash-vs-a-a-rajandha-pai-on-5-january-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Abilash vs A.A. Rajandha Pai on 5 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abilash-vs-a-a-rajandha-pai-on-5-january-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-01-04T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-05-29T11:53:26+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":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abilash-vs-a-a-rajandha-pai-on-5-january-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abilash-vs-a-a-rajandha-pai-on-5-january-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Abilash vs A.A. Rajandha Pai on 5 January, 2010","datePublished":"2010-01-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-05-29T11:53:26+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abilash-vs-a-a-rajandha-pai-on-5-january-2010"},"wordCount":1786,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Kerala High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abilash-vs-a-a-rajandha-pai-on-5-january-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abilash-vs-a-a-rajandha-pai-on-5-january-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abilash-vs-a-a-rajandha-pai-on-5-january-2010","name":"Abilash vs A.A. Rajandha Pai on 5 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-01-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-05-29T11:53:26+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abilash-vs-a-a-rajandha-pai-on-5-january-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abilash-vs-a-a-rajandha-pai-on-5-january-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abilash-vs-a-a-rajandha-pai-on-5-january-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Abilash vs A.A. Rajandha Pai on 5 January, 2010"}]},{"@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\/227437","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=227437"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/227437\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=227437"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=227437"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=227437"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}