{"id":248674,"date":"1964-04-28T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1964-04-27T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramnikal-pitambardas-mehta-vs-indradaman-amratlal-sheth-on-28-april-1964"},"modified":"2015-12-23T00:55:05","modified_gmt":"2015-12-22T19:25:05","slug":"ramnikal-pitambardas-mehta-vs-indradaman-amratlal-sheth-on-28-april-1964","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramnikal-pitambardas-mehta-vs-indradaman-amratlal-sheth-on-28-april-1964","title":{"rendered":"Ramnikal Pitambardas Mehta vs Indradaman Amratlal Sheth on 28 April, 1964"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Ramnikal Pitambardas Mehta vs Indradaman Amratlal Sheth on 28 April, 1964<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1964 AIR 1676, 1964 SCR (8)\t 1<\/div>\n
Author: R Dayal<\/div>\n
Bench: Dayal, Raghubar<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nRAMNIKAL PITAMBARDAS MEHTA\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nINDRADAMAN AMRATLAL SHETH\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n28\/04\/1964\n\nBENCH:\nDAYAL, RAGHUBAR\nBENCH:\nDAYAL, RAGHUBAR\nSARKAR, A.K.\nHIDAYATULLAH, M.\n\nCITATION:\n 1964 AIR 1676\t\t  1964 SCR  (8)\t  1\n CITATOR INFO :\n RF\t    1984 SC1890\t (7)\n R\t    1985 SC 139\t (3)\n RF\t    1986 SC1789\t (3)\n F\t    1992 SC1696\t (11)\n\n\nACT:\nBombay\tRents,\tHotel and Lodging House Rates  Control\tAct,\n1947,  s.  13(1) (g), (hh)-Premises  required  bonafide\t for\noccupation   after  carrying  out  repairs--sub-section\t  if\napplicable.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nThe  appellant was a tenant of the ground floor of  a  house\nowned  by respondent.  The respondent sued for ejectment  of\nthe  appellant\ton the ground that he  required\t the  entire\nhouse  including the portion occupied by appellant, for\t his\nresidential  purpose.  The defence of the appeRant was\tthat\nrespondent  did\t not reasonably and bona  fide\trequire\t the\npremises  for his occupation and for carrying  out  repairs.\nThe  trial court decreed the suit of the respondent  on\t the\nground\tthat respondent bona fide required the premises\t for\nhis occupation.\t Ile appeal of the appellant was  dismissed,\nHis  revision  petition was -also dismissed by\tHigh  Court.\nThe appellant came to this Court by special leave.  The only\nquestion for decision before this Court was whether the case\nof respon'dent came within the provisions of s. 13 ( I ) (g)\nor s. 13 (1) (hh), Dismissing the appeal,\nHELI):-The  case  of  respondent fell under cl.\t (g)  as  he\nrequired the premises for his own occupation.  The mere fact\nthat he intended to, make alterations in the house either on\naccount\t of  his  sweet\t will  or  on  account\tof  absolute\nnecessity  in  view of the condition of the house,  did\t not\naffect the question of his requiring the house bonafide\t and\nreasonably  for his occupation, when he had proved his\tneed\nfor  occupying\tthe house.  There was  no  such\t prohibition\neither in the language of cl. (g) or in any other  provision\nof  the Act to the effect that the landlord must occupy\t the\nhouse  for  residence without making any alteration  in\t it,\nThere  could  be no logical reason for such  a\tprohibition.\nThe provisions of s. 13 are for the benefit of the  landlord\nand  the  various grounds for ejectment\t mentioned  in\tthat\nsection\t are such which reasonably justify the ejectment  of\nthe  tenant in the exercise of the landlord's general  right\nto  eject his tenant.  There is no reason  why\trestrictions\nnot  mentioned\tin  the\t grounds be  read  into\t them.\t The\nprovisions of cl. (hh) cannot possibly apply to a case where\na  landlord reasonably and bona fide requires  the  premises\nfor  his  own  occupation even if he  had  to  demolish\t the\npremises  and erect a new building on them.  The  provisions\nof  cl.\t (hh)  apply to cases where the\t landlord  does\t not\nrequire\t the  premises for his own occupation  but  requires\nthem  for erecting a new building which is to be let out  to\ntenants.\n2\nKrishanial  Ishwarlal  Desai v. Bai Yijkor<\/a> [19641  1  S.C.R.\n553,  Krishna Das v. Bidhan Chandra<\/a>, A.I.R. 1959  Cal.\t181,\nMcKenna V. Porter Motors Ltd. [1956] A.C. 688, Betty's Cafes\nLtd.  v.  Phillips Furnishing Stores Ltd.  [1959]  A.C.\t 20,\nManchharam  Ghelabhai  Pittalwala v. Surat  Electricity\t Co.\nLtd.   Civil  Revision\tApplication  No.  204\/56  dated\t 1st\nFebruary,  1957\t by  the  Bombay  High\tCourt  and  Allarkha\nFakirmahomed v. Surat Electricity Co.  Ltd., Civil  Revision\nApplication  No.  164\/57,  dated 8th October,  1957  by\t the\nBombay High Court, referred to.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : CIVIL APPEAL No. 61 OF 1964
\nAppeal\tby special leave from the judgment and decree  dated
\nOctober\t 28,  1963  of the.  Gujarat  High  Court  in  Civil
\nRevision Application No. 697 of 1962.\n<\/p>\n
Purshottam Trikamdas, M. 1. Patel and I. N. Shroff, for\t the
\nappellant.\n<\/p>\n
S.   T. Desai, B. J. Shelat, J. B. Dadachanji, 0. C.  Mathur
\nand Ravinder Narain, for the respondent.\n<\/p>\n
April 28, 1964.\t The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\nRAGHUBAR  DAYAL,  J.-This  appeal,  by\tspecial\t leave,\t  is
\ndirected  against  the order of the Bombay  High  Court\t and
\nraises the question of the true construction of sub-cis. (g)
\nand  (hh) of sub-s. (1) of S. 13 of the Bombay Rents,  Hotel
\nand  Lodging  House  Rates Control Act, 1947  (Act  LVII  of
\n1947), hereinafter called the Act.\n<\/p>\n
The  facts  leading to the appeal, in short,  are  that\t the
\nappellant  is a tenant of the ground-floor of a house  owned
\nby the respondent.  The respondent sued for the ejectment of
\nthe  appellant\ton the ground that he  required\t the  entire
\nhouse, including the portion occupied by the appellant,\t for
\nhis residential purpose.  He further stated in the plaint-.
\n“The  whole suit bungalow is very old-built about  75  years
\nago  and at present its different parts are likely  to\tgive
\nway  and collapse.  Before sometime, a little portion of  an
\nupper balcony had collapsed.  In the circumstances, on find-
\ning  it\t unsafe\t to stay in  it\t without  making  additions,
\nalterations  and  necessary changes, I,\t the  plaintiff,  am
\nobliged to wait till I get possession of the whole bungalow.\n<\/p>\n
3<\/span><\/p>\n
1.   the plaintiff, have got the upper portion of the said
\nsuit  bungalow vacated at present and only after  the  whole
\nbungalow is got overhauled as -stated in para above, 1,\t the
\nplaintiff can utilize it for my personal use.”
\n‘Me   appellant\t contested  the\t suit  on  various   grounds
\nincluding  the ones that the respondent did  not  reasonably
\nand  bona fide require the premises for his  occupation\t and
\nthat  he  did  not  reasonably and  bona  fide\trequire\t the
\npremises for carrying out repairs.\n<\/p>\n
The trial Court found that the respondent bona fide required
\nthe premises for his occupation.  It repelled the contention
\nof  the\t appellant that the provisions of s. 1 3  (  I)\t (g)
\nwould  not be applicable when the landlord did not  wish  to
\noccupy the premises as such but intended to occupy it  after
\ncarrying  out  major repairs. and decreed  the\trespondent’s
\nsuit for ejectment.\n<\/p>\n
The  defendant\twent up in appeal.  It was  dismissed.\t The
\nappellate  Court, agreed with the views of the trial  Court.
\nThe defendant then presented a revision petition to the High
\nCourt.\t It was rejected.  It is against this order that  he
\nhas filed this appeal.\n<\/p>\n
A preliminary objection has been taken that the revision  to
\nthe  High  Court was incompetent as no\tquestion  of  juris-
\ndiction was involved.  For the appellant it is urged that on
\nthe facts found. the trial Court assumed jurisdiction  which
\nit did not have and that therefore the revision was  compet-
\nent.  We uphold the preliminary objection and hold that\t the
\nrevision was incompetent.\n<\/p>\n
The question raised was whether a decree in ejectment should
\nbe passed on the ground of personal requirement under s. 1 3
\n(1)  (g)  of the Act where it was proved that  the  landlord
\nwanted to pull down the premises and build another and\tthen
\noccupy\tit.   It  was said that in such a  case\t he  had  to
\nproceed\t under cl. (hh) of s. 13(1).  It is clear  that\t the
\nquestion  so  raised is one of interpretation of  these\t two
\nclauses.   Section 28 of the Act gives jurisdiction  to\t the
\nCourt specified in it, to try a suit or proceeding, between
\na  landlord  and  tenant  relating  to\tpossession  of\t the
\npremises.   That section expressely provides that  no  other
\nCourt, subject to the provisions of sub-s. (2) which do\t not
\napply  to  this\t case, has jurisdiction\t to  entertain\tsuch
\nsuits.\t It is clear from this section that the trial  Court
\nhad  full jurisdiction to entertain the suit for  ejectment.
\nThat being so, it had jurisdiction to interpret whether\t cl.\n<\/p>\n
(g)  of\t s.  13(1) would apply to  the\tpresent\t case.\t The
\nappellate  Court had jurisdiction to hear the  appeal.\t The
\nHigh Court could not, therefore, interfere in revision\twith
\nthe  decision  of the appellate Court, even if it  had\tgone
\nwrong, on facts or law, in the exercise of its jurisdiction.
\nIt follows that the revision application had to be dismissed
\nby the High Court and that this appeal too must fail.
\nSince  the merits of the case have been argued fully  before
\nus, we express our opinion on the law point urged before us.
\nThe sole question to determine in this appeal is whether the
\nrespondent’s case came within the provisions of
\ns.   13 (1) (g) of the Act or fell within the provisions of
\ns.   13 (1) (hh).  We may now set out these provisions:
\n“13(1)\tNothwithstanding anything contained in this Act\t but
\nsubject to the provisions of section 15, a landlord shall be
\nentitled to recover possession of any premises if the  Court
\nis satisfied…\n<\/p>\n
(g)  that the premises are reasonably and bona fide required
\nby  the landlord for occupation by himself or by any  person
\nfor  whose  benefit  the  premises are\theld  or  where\t the
\nlandlord is a trustee of a public charitable trust that\t the
\npremises are required for occupation for the purposes of the
\ntrust; or
\n(hh)  that the premises consist of not More than two  floors
\nand  are reasonably and bona fide required by  the  landlord
\nfor  the  immediate  purpose of demolishing  them  and\tsuch
\ndemolition  is\tto be made for the purpose of  erecting\t new
\nbuilding on the premises sought to be demolished.”\n<\/p>\n
5<\/span><\/p>\n
A  landlord can sue for the ejectment of his tenant in\tview
\nof  s. 13(1) for various reasons including the one  that  he
\nrequires  the  premises reasonably and bona fide  for  occu-
\npation\tby himself.  The respondent alleged, and the  Courts
\nbelow have found, that he bona fide required the premises in
\nthe  suit for occupation by himself.  The respondent  stated
\nin  the plaint that he would take up residence in  the\tpre-
\nmises after overhauling it.  It is on this account that\t the
\nappellant submits that the case falls under s. 13 (1)  (hh),
\nas  the\t respondent  wants the premises\t for  the  immediate
\npurpose of demolishing it and erecting a new building.
\nIt  is\tfurther\t contended for the appellant  that  the\t two
\ngrounds\t for ejectment under cls. (g) and (hh) are  matually
\nexclusive and therefore a landlord cannot take advantage  of
\ncl.  (g) when his case falls under cl. (hh) in view  of\t the
\nimmediate  steps he has to take after getting possession  of
\nthe premises.  We need not express an opinion on this point,
\nas, for reasons to be mentioned later, the case falls  under
\ncl. (g) and not under cl. (hh) of s. 13 (I) of the Act.
\nWe  agree with the Courts below that the  respondent’s\tcase
\nfalls under cl. (g) when he bona fiede requires the premises
\nfor  his own occupation.  The mere fact that he\t intends  to
\nmake alterations in the house either on account of his sweet
\nwill  or  on account of absolute necessity in  view  of\t the
\ncondition of the house, does not affect the question of\t his
\nrequiring  the\thouse bona fide and reasonably for  his\t oc-
\ncupation,  when\t he has proved his need\t for  occupying\t the
\nhouse.\tThere is no such prohibition either in the  language
\nof  cl.\t (g)  or in any other provision of the\tAct  to\t the
\neffect that the landlord must occupy the house for residence
\nwithout making any alterations in it.  There could at be any
\nlogical reason for such a prohibition.\tUnder ordinary\tlaw,
\nthe  landlord  is entitled to eject his tenant\twhenever  he
\nlikes,\tafter  following certain procedure except  in  cases
\nwhere  he  has\tcontracted  not\t to  eject  him\t before\t the
\nhappening  of  a  certain event.   The\tAct  restricts\tthat
\ngeneral\t right of the landlord in the special  circumstances
\nprevailing  in regard to the availability  of  accommodation
\nand the incidental abuse of those circumstances by landlords
\nin demanding un’ustifiabl high rents.\n<\/p>\n
6<\/span><\/p>\n
The  Act has provided sufficient protection to\tthe  tenants
\nagainst\t being harassed by threat of ejectment in case\tthey
\nare unable to satisfy landlords’ demands.  Various  restric-
\ntions have been placed on the right of the landlord to eject
\nthe tenant.  Section 12(1) provides that the landlord  shall
\nnot  be\t entitled  to  the recovery  of\t possession  of\t any
\npremises so long as the tenant pays or is ready and  willing
\nto  pay\t the  amount  of the  standard\trent  and  permitted
\nincreases,  if\tany,  and observes and\tperforms  the  other
\nconditions  of the tenancy in so far as they are  consistent
\nwith  the  provisions  of  the\tAct.   Section\t13  provides
\nexceptional cases in which the landlord can eject the tenant
\neven  though he had been paying rent regularly or  be  ready
\nand  willing to pay rent.  The provisions of s. 13  are\t for
\nthe  advantage of the landlord and the various\tgrounds\t for
\nejectment   mentioned  in  that\t .section  are\tsuch   which
\nreasonably  justify  the  ejectment of\tthe  tenant  in\t the
\nexercise  of  the  landlord’s general  right  to  eject\t his
\ntenant.\t  There is therefore no reason why restrictions\t not
\nmentioned  in  the  grounds be read into them.\t We  do\t not
\ntherefore agree with the contention that cl. (g) will  apply
\nonly  when  the\t landlord  bona fide  needs  to\t occupy\t the
\npremises  without  making any alteration in them,  i.e.,  to
\noccupy\tthe  identical building which the  tenant  occupies.
\nThere is no justification to give such a narrow construction
\neither\tto  the word ‘premises’ or to  the  word  ‘occupies’
\nwhich  have  been  construed by\t this  Court  in  Krishanual
\nIshwarlal Desai v. Rai Vijkor<\/a>(1) referred to later.
\nThere  are  provisions\tin the Act  which  ensure  that\t the
\nprovisions  of cl. (g) are not abused.\tSection 17  provides
\nthat if the premises are not occupied within a period of one
\nmonth from the date the landlord recovers possession or\t the
\npremises are re-let within a period of one year of the\tsaid
\ndate to any person other than the original tenant, the Court
\nmay  order the landlord, on the application of the  original
\ntenant, within the time prescribed, to place him in  occupa-
\ntion  of the premises on the original terms and\t conditions.
\nThis tends to ensure that a landlord does not eject a tenant
\nunless\the  really requires the premises for  occupation  by
\nhimself.\n<\/p>\n
(1)  [1964] 1. S.C.R. 553.\n<\/p>\n
7<\/span><\/p>\n
We  are\t therefore of opinion that once the  landlord  esta-
\nblishes\t that  he bona fide requires the  premises  for\t his
\noccupation. he is entitled to recover possession of it\tfrom
\nthe  tenant in view of the provisions of sub-cl. (g)  of  s.
\n13(1)  irrespective of the fact whether he would occupy\t the
\npremises  without  making any alterations to them  or  after
\nmaking the necessary alterations.\n<\/p>\n
The provisions of cl. (hh) cannot possibly apply to the case
\nwhere  a  landlord  reasonably and bona\t fide  requires\t the
\npremises  for his own occupation even if he had to  demolish
\nthe  premises  and  to erect a new building  on\t them.\t The
\nprovisions  of\tcl. (hh) apply to cases where  the  landlord
\ndoes  not  require the premises for his own  occupation\t but
\nrequires them for erecting a new building which is to be let
\nout to tenants.\t This is clear from the provisions of  subs.
\n(3A)  which  provide  that a landlord has  to  give  certain
\nundertaking  before a decree for eviction can be  passed  on
\nthe ground specified in cl. (hh).  He has to undertake\tthat
\nthe new building will have not less than two times the\tnum-
\nber of residential tenements and not less than two times the
\nfloor area contained in the premises sought to be  demolish-
\ned, that the work of demolishing the premises shall be\tcom-
\nmenced\tby  him not later than one month and shall  be\tcom-
\npleted not later than three months from the date he recovers
\nposession of the entire premises and that the work of  erec-
\ntion of the new building shall be completed by him not later
\nthan fifteen months from the said date.\t These\tundertakings
\nthus  provide  for a time schedule for the new\tbuilding  to
\ncome  up into existence and ensures atleast the doubling  of
\nthe  residential tenements, i.e., rooms or groups  of  rooms
\nrented\tor offered for rent as a unit: vide s. 5(12) of\t the
\nAct.\n<\/p>\n
Such undertakings would be unnecessary if the landlord seeks
\nto eject the tenant from the premises in order to occupy the
\npremises  himself after making the necessary alterations  to
\nsuit  his  conveniences.  Further, s. 17A provides  for\t the
\nejected tenant’s re-occupying the premises in case the land-
\nlord does not start the work of demolition within the period
\nspecified  in  sub-s. (3A).  Section 17B  provides  for\t the
\nejected tenant to notify to the landlord within six months
\n8<\/span>
\nfrom  the  date on which he delivered vacant  possession  of
\nthe,  premises of his intention to occupy a tenement in\t the
\nnew  building on its completion on the conditions  specified
\nin  the\t section.  Section 17C provides\t that  the  landlord
\nwould intimate to the tenant the date when the new  building
\nwould  be complete and that the tenant would be entitled  to
\noccupy the tenement on that date.  These provisions  clearly
\nestablish  that\t the provisions of cl. (hh) apply  when\t the
\nlandlord  desires. to demolish the premises for the  purpose
\nof erecting a new building on the premises for being let  to
\ntenants.\n<\/p>\n
We  may\t mention that the provisions of clauses\t similar  to
\ncls.  (g)  and (hh) of sub-s. (1) of s. 13 of the  Act\thave
\nbeen  construed\t in  this  way\tin  Krishna  Das  v.  Bidhan
\nChandra(‘),  McKenna<\/a> v. Porter Motors Ltd.(‘),\tand  Betty’s
\nCafes Ltd.\n<\/p>\n
v.   Phillips Furnishing Stores Ltd.(‘).\n<\/p>\n
The appellant has referred us to two cases of the Bombay
\nHigh Court which tend to support him in so far as it is held
\nin  them that in circumstances similar to the  present\tone,
\nthe  case  would come under cl. (hh) of s. 1 3 (I)  and\t not
\nunder  cl. (g).\t They are : Manchharam Ghelabhai  Pittalwala
\nv. The Surat Electricity Co. Ltdt. (4 ) and Allarkha  Fakir-
\nmahomed\t v. The Surat Electricity Co. Ltd. (5).\t The  latter
\ncase followed the previous one.\t In the former case the High
\nCourt said:\n<\/p>\n
“Indeed the expression ‘occupation’ occurring in clause\t (g)
\nmeans ‘possession followed by actual occupation’, while\t for
\nthe purpose of clause (hh) what is necessary is\t ‘possession
\nfor the purpose of demolition’.\t ‘Occupation’ within  clause\n<\/p>\n
(g)  would include ‘possession’, as it is obvious  that\t one
\ncannot occupy unless one is able to possess. but in the case
\nof  clause  (hh)  it is clear that it is  not  necessary  to
\noccupy for the purpose of demolition.  What is necessary  is
\nthat the land-\n<\/p>\n
(1)  A.I.R. 1959, Cal. 18i
\n(3)  [1959] A. C. 20 ;\n<\/p>\n
\t\t   (2) [1956] A. C. 688;\n<\/p>\n
(4)-Civil Revision Application NO. 204\/56 decided on  1-2-57
\nby the Bombay, High Court.\n<\/p>\n
(5)  Civii Revision Application No. 164\/57 decided On  8-10-
\n57 by the
\nBombay High Court.\n<\/p>\n
9<\/span><\/p>\n
lord  must  possess in order to enable him to  demolish\t and
\nerect a new building.”\n<\/p>\n
Demolition of the existing building and subsequent  erection
\nof  a new building are only intermediate steps in  order  to
\nmake the building fit for occupation by the landlord;
\nIn  Krishanlal Iswarlal Desai’s case(‘) this Court  said  in
\nconnection with the provisions of s. 17(1) of the Act:
\n“What  is, however, clear beyond any doubt is that when\t the
\npossession  is obtained in execution it must be followed  by
\nan  act of occupation which must inevitably consist of\tsome
\novert act in that behalf…… ”\n<\/p>\n
‘Occupation’ of the premises in cl. (g) does not necessarily
\nrefer  to occupation as residence.  The owner can  occupy  a
\nplace by making use of it in any manner.  In a case like the
\npresent, if the plaintiffs on getting possession start their
\nwork of demolition within the prescribed period, they  would
\nhave occupied the premises in order to erect a building\t fit
\nfor their occupation.\n<\/p>\n
We therefore hold that the respondent’s case came within cl.\n<\/p>\n
(g) of sub-s. (1) of s. 13 of the Act and therefore  dismiss
\nthe  appeal with costs.\t Three months allowed  for  vacating
\nthe  premises on the defendant tenant undertaking to  vacate
\nthe premises himself during this period.\n<\/p>\n
Appeal dismissed.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Ramnikal Pitambardas Mehta vs Indradaman Amratlal Sheth on 28 April, 1964 Equivalent citations: 1964 AIR 1676, 1964 SCR (8) 1 Author: R Dayal Bench: Dayal, Raghubar PETITIONER: RAMNIKAL PITAMBARDAS MEHTA Vs. RESPONDENT: INDRADAMAN AMRATLAL SHETH DATE OF JUDGMENT: 28\/04\/1964 BENCH: DAYAL, RAGHUBAR BENCH: DAYAL, RAGHUBAR SARKAR, A.K. HIDAYATULLAH, M. CITATION: 1964 […]<\/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-248674","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nRamnikal Pitambardas Mehta vs Indradaman Amratlal Sheth on 28 April, 1964 - 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\/ramnikal-pitambardas-mehta-vs-indradaman-amratlal-sheth-on-28-april-1964\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Ramnikal Pitambardas Mehta vs Indradaman Amratlal Sheth on 28 April, 1964 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramnikal-pitambardas-mehta-vs-indradaman-amratlal-sheth-on-28-april-1964\" \/>\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=\"1964-04-27T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-12-22T19:25:05+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=\"16 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramnikal-pitambardas-mehta-vs-indradaman-amratlal-sheth-on-28-april-1964#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramnikal-pitambardas-mehta-vs-indradaman-amratlal-sheth-on-28-april-1964\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Ramnikal Pitambardas Mehta vs Indradaman Amratlal Sheth on 28 April, 1964\",\"datePublished\":\"1964-04-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-12-22T19:25:05+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramnikal-pitambardas-mehta-vs-indradaman-amratlal-sheth-on-28-april-1964\"},\"wordCount\":2718,\"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\/ramnikal-pitambardas-mehta-vs-indradaman-amratlal-sheth-on-28-april-1964#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramnikal-pitambardas-mehta-vs-indradaman-amratlal-sheth-on-28-april-1964\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramnikal-pitambardas-mehta-vs-indradaman-amratlal-sheth-on-28-april-1964\",\"name\":\"Ramnikal Pitambardas Mehta vs Indradaman Amratlal Sheth on 28 April, 1964 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1964-04-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-12-22T19:25:05+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramnikal-pitambardas-mehta-vs-indradaman-amratlal-sheth-on-28-april-1964#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramnikal-pitambardas-mehta-vs-indradaman-amratlal-sheth-on-28-april-1964\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramnikal-pitambardas-mehta-vs-indradaman-amratlal-sheth-on-28-april-1964#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Ramnikal Pitambardas Mehta vs Indradaman Amratlal Sheth on 28 April, 1964\"}]},{\"@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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"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":"Ramnikal Pitambardas Mehta vs Indradaman Amratlal Sheth on 28 April, 1964 - 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\/ramnikal-pitambardas-mehta-vs-indradaman-amratlal-sheth-on-28-april-1964","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Ramnikal Pitambardas Mehta vs Indradaman Amratlal Sheth on 28 April, 1964 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramnikal-pitambardas-mehta-vs-indradaman-amratlal-sheth-on-28-april-1964","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1964-04-27T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-12-22T19:25:05+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":"16 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramnikal-pitambardas-mehta-vs-indradaman-amratlal-sheth-on-28-april-1964#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramnikal-pitambardas-mehta-vs-indradaman-amratlal-sheth-on-28-april-1964"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Ramnikal Pitambardas Mehta vs Indradaman Amratlal Sheth on 28 April, 1964","datePublished":"1964-04-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-12-22T19:25:05+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramnikal-pitambardas-mehta-vs-indradaman-amratlal-sheth-on-28-april-1964"},"wordCount":2718,"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\/ramnikal-pitambardas-mehta-vs-indradaman-amratlal-sheth-on-28-april-1964#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramnikal-pitambardas-mehta-vs-indradaman-amratlal-sheth-on-28-april-1964","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramnikal-pitambardas-mehta-vs-indradaman-amratlal-sheth-on-28-april-1964","name":"Ramnikal Pitambardas Mehta vs Indradaman Amratlal Sheth on 28 April, 1964 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1964-04-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-12-22T19:25:05+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramnikal-pitambardas-mehta-vs-indradaman-amratlal-sheth-on-28-april-1964#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramnikal-pitambardas-mehta-vs-indradaman-amratlal-sheth-on-28-april-1964"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramnikal-pitambardas-mehta-vs-indradaman-amratlal-sheth-on-28-april-1964#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Ramnikal Pitambardas Mehta vs Indradaman Amratlal Sheth on 28 April, 1964"}]},{"@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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","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\/248674","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=248674"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/248674\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=248674"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=248674"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=248674"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}