{"id":233138,"date":"1976-11-19T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1976-11-18T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-chandra-misra-vs-mahendra-tripathi-ors-on-19-november-1976"},"modified":"2016-03-04T18:06:00","modified_gmt":"2016-03-04T12:36:00","slug":"ramesh-chandra-misra-vs-mahendra-tripathi-ors-on-19-november-1976","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-chandra-misra-vs-mahendra-tripathi-ors-on-19-november-1976","title":{"rendered":"Ramesh Chandra Misra vs Mahendra Tripathi & Ors on 19 November, 1976"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Ramesh Chandra Misra vs Mahendra Tripathi & Ors on 19 November, 1976<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1977 AIR 445, \t\t 1977 SCR (2) 128<\/div>\n
Author: A Gupta<\/div>\n
Bench: Gupta, A.C.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nRAMESH CHANDRA MISRA\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nMAHENDRA TRIPATHI & ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT19\/11\/1976\n\nBENCH:\nGUPTA, A.C.\nBENCH:\nGUPTA, A.C.\nBHAGWATI, P.N.\n\nCITATION:\n 1977 AIR  445\t\t  1977 SCR  (2) 128\n 1977 SCC  (1)\t25\n\n\nACT:\n\t    Interpretation of statutes--If can\tbe construed   keep-\n\ting  object  in\t view whether object to be gathered from the\n\tlanguage  used--U.P. Urban Building (Regulation of  letting,\n\trent and eviction) Act 1972--Sections 3(c), 11, 12, 13,\t 16,\n\t18--Rules   10\t &   11--Application   for   allotment\t  of\n\tpremises--Whether  an authorised occupant  can\tapply--First\n\tcome first served basis.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n\t    In September, 1973, the appellant applied under  section\n\t16(1)(a) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of letting,\n\trent and eviction) Act, 1972 for the allotment of a part  of\n\ta  house, which was actually occupied by him.  According  to\n\tthe  appellant,\t he  was included as a tenant  by  a  person\n\trepresenting  himself to be the owner but who in fact was  a\n\ttenant.\t  In November, 1973, the first respondent  also\t ap-\n\tplied for allotment of the said premises.  The Area  Ration-\n\ting  Officer allotted the premises to the first\t respondent.\n\tThe  District Judge allowed the appeal filed by\t the  appel-\n\tlant,  set  aside the order of allotment in  favour  of\t the\n\tfirst  respondent  and remanded the case  to  the  Rationing\n\tOfficer\t to  be decided afresh in  accordance  with  law.The\n\tDistrict Judge pointed out that the Area. Rationing  Officer\n\thad ignored altogether rule 11 of the Rules framed under the\n\tAct  which  required  that in the matter  of  allotment\t the\n\tprinciple 'first come first served' should be followed.\t The\n\tDistrict  Judge also negatived the contention of  the  first\n\trespondent  that the appellant's application was  not  main-\n\ttainable  since he was an unauthorised occupant.  The  Court\n\theld  that there was no provision in the Act which  bars  an\n\tunauthorised  occupant from applying for an allotment. In  a\n\twit  petition filed by the first respondent the\t High  Court\n\tquashed\t the  order of the District Judge and  restored\t the\n\torder made by the Area Rationing Officer.\n\t    Section 11 of the Act provides that no person shall\t let\n\tany  building  except  in pursuance of\tan  allotment  order\n\tissued under section 16.  Section 13 provides that no person\n\tshall  occupy a building  or part thereof which a   landlord\n\tor  tenant  has ceased to occupy except under  an  order  of\n\tallotment  made\t under\tsection 16.  Under  section  16\t the\n\tDistrict Magistrate is empowered to make an order  requiring\n\tthe  landlord  to let any building which is  or\t has  fallen\n\tvacant or is about to fall vacant or a part of such building\n\tto  any person specified in the order.\tAn order under\tsec-\n\ttion  16  is appealable under section 18.   In\texercise  of\n\tpowers\tconferred by section 41 of the Act, the\t rules\thave\n\tbeen framed by the State Government.  Rule 10 prescribes the\n\tprocedure  for allotment.  It provides that the\t application\n\tshould\tbe  entered in the register after  classifying\tthem\n\taccording to the priority of the categories. Rule 10 further\n\tprovides  that a building shall not.be allotted to a  person\n\twho  is\t deemed to have ceased to occupy a  building  for  a\n\tperiod of two years from the date of such deemed  cessation.\n\tRule  11 fixes order of priorities in allotment of  residen-\n\ttial buildings and   it further provides that in each of the\n\tcategories the principle 'first come first served' shall  be\n\tfollowed.\n\tAl1owing the appeal,\n\t    HELD:  (1) The High Court in its judgment has  not\tmen-\n\ttioned any provision in the Act which dissentitles  unautho-\n\trised occupants from applying for allotment.  Rules 10(5)  &\n\t(6)  provide that certain persons should not  ordinarily  be\n\tallotted  a  promises; the appellant does  not\tfall  within\n\tthose categories. [131D-E]\n\t    2.\tThe High Court infers the disability of an  unautho-\n\trised  occupant\t from  applying for an\tallotment  from\t the\n\tobject of the Act.  The object of the Act has to be gathered\n\tfrom  its  provisions.\tThere is nothing in  the  Act  which\n\tdisentitles  an unauthorised occupant from applying  for  an\n\tallotment.\t[131H, 132A]\n\t 129\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
\tCIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 127 of 1976.
\n\t    (Appeal  by\t Special Leave from the Judgment  and  Order
\n\tdated  the  20.8.1975 of the Allahabad High  Court  (Lucknow
\n\tBench) at Lucknow in Civil Writ Petition No. 1062 of 2974).
\n\tG.N. Dikshit and S.K. Bisaria, for the Appellant.
\n\t D. Goburdhan, for the Respondent.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\n\tGUPTA,\tJ.–This  appeal by special leave arises  out  of  a
\n\tproceeding under the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings  (Regula-
\n\ttion  of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (referred  to
\n\thereinafter as the Act).   On September 11, 1973 the  appel-
\n\tlant applied under section 16(1)(a) for allotment of a\tpart
\n\tof  house No. 98,  Lokmanganj,\tLucknow.  He was in fact  in
\n\toccupation of this portion of the building when he made\t the
\n\tapplication: according to the appellant he had been inducted
\n\tas  a tenant by a person representing that he was the  owner
\n\tof  the\t house,though really he was himself a  tenant.\t  On
\n\tNovember  24,  1973 the first respondent  also\tapplied\t for
\n\talloting the house to him. Subsequently there were two\tmore
\n\tapplicants  for the house.The Area Rationing  Officer  (Rent
\n\tControl) by his order dated June 4, 1974 allotted the accom-
\n\tmodation  to the  first respondent.  The appellant before us
\n\tpreferred an appeal to the District Judge, Lucknow,  who  on
\n\tAugust\t7, 1974 allowed the appeal, set aside the  order  of
\n\tallotment made in favour of the first respondent and remand-
\n\ted the case to the Area Rationing Officer (Rent Control)  to
\n\tbe decided  afresh  in accordance with law.\n<\/p>\n
\t    The\t District Judge pointed out that the Area  Rationing
\n\tOfficer (Rent Control) had ignored altogether rule 11 of the
\n\tRules framed under the Act which required that in the matter
\n\tof allotment the principle “first come first served”  should
\n\tbe  followed.\tThe District Judge  overruled  a  contention
\n\traised on behalf of the\t first\trespondent  that  the appel-
\n\tlant’s application for allotment was not maintainable as  he
\n\twas  an unauthorised occupant within the meaning of the\t Act
\n\tof the building in question.   The appellate authority\theld
\n\tthat  there was no provision in the Act which bars an  unau-
\n\tthorised occupant from applying for an allotment.  On a writ
\n\tpetition  filed\t by the\t first\trespondent,   the  Allahabad
\n\tHigh  Court  quashed  the order of the\tDistrict  Judge\t and
\n\trestored the order made by the area Rationing Officer  (Rent
\n\tControl)  alloting the house to the first respondent on\t the
\n\tview that rule 11 requiring “first come first served”  prin-
\n\tciple to be followed was applicable only to persons similar-
\n\tly  situated,\tand an unauthorised  occupant could  not  be
\n\t“placed\t in the same situation as others who  were  in\tneed
\n\tof accommodation”.  According to the High Court the  princi-
\n\tple “first come first served” was” not intend to be  applied
\n\tmechanically  and not in such a manner as to  frustrate\t the
\n\tobject of the Act”. The correctness of the view taken by the
\n\tHigh Court is in challenge before  us.\n<\/p>\n
\t    It is necessary to refer briefly to the relevant  provi-
\n\tsions of the Act and the rules framed thereunder.  The\tAct,
\n\tas  its long title shows, is a statute “to provide,  in\t the
\n\tinterest of the general public, for the
\n\t10–1458SCI\/76
\n\t130<\/span>
\n\tregulation  of\tletting\t and rent of, and  the\teviction  of
\n\ttenants from, certain classes of buildings situated in urban
\n\tareas, and for matters connected therewith”.  Chapter III of
\n\tthe  Act  which contains provisions regulating\tletting\t in-
\n\tcludes section 11 to section 19.  Section 11 lays down\tthat
\n\tno. person shall let any building except in pursuance of  an
\n\tallotment  order  issued   under section  16.\tSection\t  12
\n\tstates inter alia  that a landlord or a tenant of a building
\n\tshall  be deemed to have ceased. to occupy the\tbuilding  or
\n\tpart  thereof  if he has allowed it to be  occupied  by\t any
\n\tperson\twho. is not a member of his family.   The  appellant
\n\tand  the tenant of the building who inducted him  there\t axe
\n\tnot members of the same family.\t Section 13 provides that no
\n\tperson\tshall  occupy  a building or part  thereof  which  a
\n\tlandlord  or  tenant has ceased to occupy  except  under  an
\n\torder  of  allotment  made under section 16 and\t that  if  a
\n\tperson\t“so purports to occupy” he shall be deemed to be  an
\n\tunauthorised occupant such building or part.  Under  section
\n\t16(1)(a) the District Magistrate may make an order requiring
\n\tthe  landlord  to let any building which is  or\t has  fallen
\n\tvacant or is about to fall vacant or a part of such building
\n\tto any person specified in the order.  An order made by\t the
\n\tDistrict Magistrate under this provision is called an allot-
\n\tment  order.   ‘District Magistrate’ as defined\t in  section
\n\t3(c)  includes an officer authorised by the District  Magis-
\n\ttrate  to exercise all or any of his powers under  the\tAct.
\n\tAn  order under section 16 is appealable under\tsection\t 18.
\n\tSection 41 authorises the State Government to make rules  to
\n\tcarry  out  the purposes of the Act.  Rule 10 of  the  Rules
\n\tframed under the Act prescribes the procedure for allotment.
\n\tThe  District Magistrate is required to maintain a  register
\n\tof  applications for allotment of buildings.   The  applica-
\n\ttions are to be classified according to the priority catego-
\n\tries specified in rule 11 and they must be registered in the
\n\torder  they are received.  The register is  prepared  afresh
\n\tfor  every calendar  year and  applicants who are unable  to
\n\tsecure\tallotment by the end of an year and  whose  applica-
\n\ttions were not rejected as not maintainable are entitled  to
\n\tapply  by  the 15th of January of the  succeeding  year\t for
\n\trenewal of their applications and they retain their original
\n\trelative priority.  Sub-rule (5) of rule 10 provides that no
\n\tbuilding shall ordinarily be. allotted to the persons or for
\n\tthe  purposes specified in clauses (a), (b) and (c)  of\t the
\n\tsub-rule.   Sub-rule (6) lays down inter alia that a  person
\n\twho is deemed to have ceased to occupy a building within the
\n\tmeaning\t of section 12(1)(b) shall not be allotted  that  or
\n\tany  other residential building for a  period of  two  years
\n\tfrom  the   date of such deemed cessation.   Rule  11  which
\n\tfixes  the order of priorities in allotment  of\t residential
\n\tbuildings states in sub-rule (1) that:\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t    “In\t making allotment of  a\t residential
\n\t\t      building,\t .the following order of  priorities
\n\t\t      shall be observed:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t\t  Firstly, for public purposes;
\n\t\t\t  Secondly,   for  accommodating  a   person
\n\t\t      against  whom  an order has  been\t passed\t for
\n\t\t      eviction under Section 21, not being a  tenant
\n\t\t      referred\tto  in\tExplanation (1)\t to  Section
\n\t\t      21(1),  or a decree has been passed in a\tsuit
\n\t\t      filed  with  the permission  of  the  District
\n\t\t      Magistrate under section 3 of the old Act\t (or
\n\t\t      such  suit or application is pending) and\t who
\n\t\t      or
\n\t\t      131<\/span>
\n\t\t      members of whose family do not own or hold  as
\n\t\t      tenants any other residential building in\t the
\n\t\t      same   city,   municipality,  town  ‘area\t  or
\n\t\t      notified area;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t      Thirdly, for accommodating others;
\n\t\t      and in each of the above categories subject to
\n\t\t      the provisions of sub-rule (2), the  principle
\n\t\t      “first   come,   first   served”\t shall\t  be
\n\t\t      followed.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t   As  intending allottees the appellant and the  first\t re-
\n\tspondent both come within the third category.
\n\t   If  the  principle  ‘first come first served’  is  to  be
\n\tfollowed in choosing between them, the appellant’s  applica-
\n\ttion  for allotment  being earlier in point of\ttime  should
\n\thave preference unless there is any valid ground for reject-
\n\ting  his claim.\t We are not concerned in this  appeal  about
\n\tthe  existence\tof any such ground; the District  Judge\t had
\n\tremitted  the case to the Area Rationing Officer (Rent\tCon-
\n\ttrol) for a fresh decision in accordance with law  following
\n\tthe  ‘first  come first served’ principle.  The\t High  Court
\n\tthought that the appellant being in unauthorised  occupation
\n\tof  the building within the meaning  of section 13  was\t not
\n\tentitled to apply for allotment of the premises to him.\t  It
\n\tdoes not however appear from the Judgment of the High  Court
\n\tthat  there  is any provision in the Act  which\t disentitles
\n\tsuch  unauthorised  occupants from applying  for  allotment.
\n\tThe appellant is not one of the persons to whom no  building
\n\tis ordinarily to  be allotted under sub-rules (5) and (6) of
\n\trule 10.  The High Court refers to sub-rules (4) and (5)  of
\n\trule 11 to show that the principle first come first  served’
\n\tdoes  not  apply in all circumstances.\tSub-rule  (4)  gives
\n\toverriding  powers  to the District Magistrate\tto  make  an
\n\tallotment out of turn in  favour of a person who in  occupy-
\n\ting any accommodation proposed to be requisitioned under the
\n\tUttar Pradesh Temporary Accommodation  Requisition Act, 1947
\n\tand  to\t whom  alternative accommodation is required  to  be
\n\tprovided  under that Act.  Sub-rule (5) which  is  expressly
\n\tmade  subject to the other sub-rules of rule 11 states\tthat
\n\tit  should  be ensured that no person shall  be\t allotted  a
\n\tbuilding which carries so little rent that he is able to get
\n\ta  residence on payment of rent which is less than  ten\t per
\n\tcent  of his salary or other income, after taking into\tcon-
\n\tsideration the house rent allowance allowed by his employer.
\n\tBoth  these sub-rules are quite irrelevant for\tthe  present
\n\tpurpose.   Therefore,  assuming that  sub-rules (4) and\t (5)
\n\tare  exceptions to the ‘first come first served’  principle,
\n\tthe  appellant’s application for allotment cannot be  thrown
\n\tout unless there was some provision prohibiting unauthorised
\n\toccupants  from\t applying  for allotment.   The\t High  Court
\n\tthinks\tthat an unauthorised occupant cannot be\t “placed  in
\n\tthe same situations as others who are in need of  accommoda-
\n\ttion” and that the  principle ‘first come first served’ “has
\n\tto  be applied amongst person of the same category  who\t are
\n\tsimilarly  situated”.  The High Court has not mentioned\t any
\n\tprovision  of the Act to justify the view it has taken,\t nor
\n\tany  such provision has been referred to by counsel for\t the
\n\tfirst  respondent  which disables an  unauthorised  occupant
\n\tfrom  applying for an allotment.  The disability,  the\tHigh
\n\tCourt infers from the object of the Act.  The
\n\t132<\/span>
\n\tobject of the Act has to be gathered from its provisions and
\n\twe  have not found anything in the Act which disentitles  an
\n\tunauthorised  occupant\tto  ask for an\tallotment.   In\t our
\n\topinion the High Court was in error in quashing the order of
\n\tthe District Judge.  The appeal is accordingly allowed.\t The
\n\tjudgment  of  the High Court is set aside and  that  of\t the
\n\tDistrict Judge dated August 7, 1974 is restored. There\twill
\n\tbe no order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n
\tP.H.P.\t  Appeal allowed.\n<\/p>\n
\t133<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Ramesh Chandra Misra vs Mahendra Tripathi & Ors on 19 November, 1976 Equivalent citations: 1977 AIR 445, 1977 SCR (2) 128 Author: A Gupta Bench: Gupta, A.C. PETITIONER: RAMESH CHANDRA MISRA Vs. RESPONDENT: MAHENDRA TRIPATHI & ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT19\/11\/1976 BENCH: GUPTA, A.C. BENCH: GUPTA, A.C. BHAGWATI, P.N. CITATION: 1977 AIR […]<\/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-233138","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nRamesh Chandra Misra vs Mahendra Tripathi & Ors on 19 November, 1976 - 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\/ramesh-chandra-misra-vs-mahendra-tripathi-ors-on-19-november-1976\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Ramesh Chandra Misra vs Mahendra Tripathi & Ors on 19 November, 1976 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-chandra-misra-vs-mahendra-tripathi-ors-on-19-november-1976\" \/>\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=\"1976-11-18T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-03-04T12:36:00+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=\"12 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramesh-chandra-misra-vs-mahendra-tripathi-ors-on-19-november-1976#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramesh-chandra-misra-vs-mahendra-tripathi-ors-on-19-november-1976\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Ramesh Chandra Misra vs Mahendra Tripathi & Ors on 19 November, 1976\",\"datePublished\":\"1976-11-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-03-04T12:36:00+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramesh-chandra-misra-vs-mahendra-tripathi-ors-on-19-november-1976\"},\"wordCount\":1734,\"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\\\/ramesh-chandra-misra-vs-mahendra-tripathi-ors-on-19-november-1976#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramesh-chandra-misra-vs-mahendra-tripathi-ors-on-19-november-1976\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramesh-chandra-misra-vs-mahendra-tripathi-ors-on-19-november-1976\",\"name\":\"Ramesh Chandra Misra vs Mahendra Tripathi & Ors on 19 November, 1976 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1976-11-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-03-04T12:36:00+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramesh-chandra-misra-vs-mahendra-tripathi-ors-on-19-november-1976#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramesh-chandra-misra-vs-mahendra-tripathi-ors-on-19-november-1976\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramesh-chandra-misra-vs-mahendra-tripathi-ors-on-19-november-1976#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Ramesh Chandra Misra vs Mahendra Tripathi & Ors on 19 November, 1976\"}]},{\"@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":"Ramesh Chandra Misra vs Mahendra Tripathi & Ors on 19 November, 1976 - 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\/ramesh-chandra-misra-vs-mahendra-tripathi-ors-on-19-november-1976","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Ramesh Chandra Misra vs Mahendra Tripathi & Ors on 19 November, 1976 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-chandra-misra-vs-mahendra-tripathi-ors-on-19-november-1976","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1976-11-18T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-03-04T12:36:00+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":"12 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-chandra-misra-vs-mahendra-tripathi-ors-on-19-november-1976#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-chandra-misra-vs-mahendra-tripathi-ors-on-19-november-1976"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Ramesh Chandra Misra vs Mahendra Tripathi & Ors on 19 November, 1976","datePublished":"1976-11-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-03-04T12:36:00+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-chandra-misra-vs-mahendra-tripathi-ors-on-19-november-1976"},"wordCount":1734,"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\/ramesh-chandra-misra-vs-mahendra-tripathi-ors-on-19-november-1976#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-chandra-misra-vs-mahendra-tripathi-ors-on-19-november-1976","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-chandra-misra-vs-mahendra-tripathi-ors-on-19-november-1976","name":"Ramesh Chandra Misra vs Mahendra Tripathi & Ors on 19 November, 1976 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1976-11-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-03-04T12:36:00+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-chandra-misra-vs-mahendra-tripathi-ors-on-19-november-1976#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-chandra-misra-vs-mahendra-tripathi-ors-on-19-november-1976"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-chandra-misra-vs-mahendra-tripathi-ors-on-19-november-1976#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Ramesh Chandra Misra vs Mahendra Tripathi & Ors on 19 November, 1976"}]},{"@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\/233138","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=233138"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/233138\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=233138"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=233138"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=233138"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}