{"id":251772,"date":"1980-05-07T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1980-05-06T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-swaroop-rai-vs-lilavathi-on-7-may-1980"},"modified":"2015-03-27T03:32:49","modified_gmt":"2015-03-26T22:02:49","slug":"ram-swaroop-rai-vs-lilavathi-on-7-may-1980","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-swaroop-rai-vs-lilavathi-on-7-may-1980","title":{"rendered":"Ram Swaroop Rai vs Lilavathi on 7 May, 1980"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Ram Swaroop Rai vs Lilavathi on 7 May, 1980<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1982 AIR 945, 1980 SCR (3)1034<\/div>\n
Author: V Krishnaiyer<\/div>\n
Bench: Krishnaiyer, V.R.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nRAM SWAROOP RAI\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nLILAVATHI\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT07\/05\/1980\n\nBENCH:\nKRISHNAIYER, V.R.\nBENCH:\nKRISHNAIYER, V.R.\nPATHAK, R.S.\n\nCITATION:\n 1982 AIR  945\t\t  1980 SCR  (3)1034\n 1980 SCC  (3) 452\n CITATOR INFO :\n C\t    1984 SC  87\t (20)\n RF\t    1988 SC2031\t (7)\n F\t    1990 SC 897\t (8,11,13)\n\n\nACT:\n     U.P. Rent\tControl Act  (Act 13 of 1972), Section 2(2)-\nExemption from\tapplication of the provisions of the Act for\nthe period  of ten  years in  respect of  new constructions-\nBurden of  Proof is  upon the  landlord\t and  not  upon\t the\ntenant.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n     The respondent  landlady purchased\t shop No.  66 in the\ncity of\t Jhansi in 1969 from one Brij Mohan (DW 2), occupied\nthe first  floor and  allowed the appellant\/tenant to occupy\nthe ground  floor in 1970 on a lease deed which recited that\nthe building  was erected  in 1965.  In 1975, the respondent\nfiled the  ejection suit  on the basis that the building was\nnew,  that   the  Act\tdid  not   deter  eviction   of\t new\nconstructions put  up within  ten years of the suit and so a\ndecree was  inevitable. The  appellant-tenant  resisted\t the\nclaim on the plea that the building was constructed 50 years\nearlier. The  Trial Court  negatived the defence and decreed\neviction and  this was\tupheld by  the High Court. Hence the\nappeal by special leave to this Court.\n     Allowing the  appeal and  remanding the  matter to\t the\nTrial Court, the Court\n^\n     HELD :  1. In  the normal\tcourse, no  doubt the appeal\nmust be dismissed as concluded by findings of fact. To avoid\npossible public\t mischief through  a new class of litigation\nfor eviction  by easy  resort  to  the\t\"new  construction,\"\nexpedient,   interference   under   Article   136<\/a>   of\t the\nConstitution is necessary. [1037 A-B]\n     2.Section\t2(2)<\/a>  of  the  U.P.  Act,  uses\t the  phrase\n\"nothing in  the rent  control legislation  shall apply to a\nbuilding\" during  a period  of ten  years from\tthe date  on\nwhich its  construction is  completed. In  other  words,  in\nregard to  all buildings  the Act  applies save\t where\tthis\nexemption  operates.   Therefore  the\tlandlord  who  seeks\nexemption must prove that exception. The burden is on him to\nmake out  that notwithstanding the rent control legislation,\nhis building  is out  of its ambit. It is not for the tenant\nto prove  that the  building has  been constructed  beyond a\nperiod of  ten years, but it is for the landlady to make out\nthat the construction has been completed within ten years of\nthe suit.  This is  sensible not  merely because the statute\nexpressly states  so and  the setting  unnecessarily implies\nso, but\t also because it is the landlady who knows best when\nthe building  was completed,  and not the tenant. As between\nthe two,  the owner of the building must tell the court when\nthe building  was constructed,\tand not\t the tenant thereof.\nSpeaking generally, it is fair that the onus of establishing\nthe date of construction of the building is squarely laid on\nthe landlord although in a small category of cases where the\nlandlord is a purchaser from another, he will have to depend\non his assignor to prove the fact. [1038 C-F]\n     3.\t An analysis of Explanation 1 to s. 2(2)<\/a> of the U.P.\nAct indicates:\n\t  (1)  Where a building has not been assessed, it is\n\t       the date on which the completion was reported\n\t       to,  or\t otherwise  recorded  by  the  local\n\t       authority having jurisdiction. [1038 G-H]\n1035\n\t  (2)  Where a building has been assessed, it is the\n\t       date on\twhich the  first   assessment  comes\n\t       into effect.\n\t       Provided\t that  if  the\tdate  on  which\t the\n\t       completion was  reported,  to,  or  otherwise\n\t       recorded by,  the local\tauthority is earlier\n\t       than the\t date of  the first  assessment, the\n\t       date of completion will be such earlier date.\n\t       [1039 A-B]\n\t  (3)  Where  there   is  no   report,\t record\t  or\n\t       assessment,  it\t is  the   date\t of   actual\n\t       occupation for  the first  time (not being an\n\t       occupation for the purpose of supervising the\n\t       construction or\tguarding the  building under\n\t       construction). [1039 B-C]\n     Unfortunately, it\tis not\tpossible for  the purchaser-\nrespondent or  the tenant-appellant to give direct testimony\nabout the  time of  the construction  or the  nature of\t the\nconstruction vis-a-vis\tExplanation (b)\t or  (c).  The\tbest\ntestimony is  the municipal  records about the completion of\nthe  building\tand  the   verification\t by   the  municipal\nauthorities as\tto whether  a new construction has come into\nbeing or an old construction has been remodelled and, if so,\nwhen  exactly  the  completion\ttook  effect.  It  is  quite\nconceivable  that  the\tmunicipal  records  bearing  on\t the\ncompletion of  the construction\t may throw conclusive light,\nwhatever might\thave been  the original proposal in the plan\nsubmitted. It  is perfectly  possible that  on a view of the\nearlier construction,  vis a  vis the completed new building\nthe former  may form  but a  small part. It may also be that\nthe implication of the expression \"increased assessment\" may\nbe explained with reference to earlier assessment records in\nthe municipality.  Moreover,  whenever\ta  new\tbuilding  is\ncompleted, a report has statutorily to be made and only on a\ncompletion survey  and certificate, occupation is ordinarily\npermitted. These  records must\talso  be  available  in\t the\noffice of  the local  authority. The  statute makes it clear\nthat reliance  upon the municipal records rather than on the\nlips of\t witnesses, is\tindicated to  determine the  date of\ncompletion  and\t  the  nature\tof  the\t construction.\tThis\nstatutory guideline  has  been\twholly\toverlooked  and\t the\nburden lying  on the  landlord has not been appreciated. The\nresult is that the eviction order has to be demolished.\n\t\t\t\t\t[1039 F-G, 1040 D-G]\n     In the instant case (i) the Municipal assessment record\nproduced in  the Court merely states \"increased assessment\".\nIt may suggest the existence of an assessment which has been\nincreased or it may perhaps be argued that when the building\nwas reconstructed  a new  assessment was made which was more\nthan the  previous assessment  and, therefore, was described\nas  increased\tassessment;  (ii)   the\t oral\tevidence  is\ninconsequential\t being\t second\t hand  testimony.  Even\t the\nrecital in  the rent  deed that there was a new construction\nin 1965-66  is by  the appellant and the respondent, neither\nof whom\t has any direct knowledge about the construction. Of\ncourse, an  admission by  the appellant\t is evidence against\nhim but\t an admission is not always conclusive especially in\nthe light of the municipal records such as are available and\nthe burden  such as  has been laid by the statute; and (iii)\nthe failure  of the  trial Court specifically to record when\nthe building  was completed  and  what\twas  the  extent  of\nrebuilding, whether  it was  a case  of total demolition and\nreconstruction or  such extensive  additions as\t to push the\nexisting building  into a  minor part,\tbecomes fatal. These\nbasic issues  have failed  to receive any attention from the\ncourts below.  A finding recorded on speculative basis is no\nfinding and that is the fate of the holding. [1039 G-H, 1040\nA-D]\n1036\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
     CIVIL APPELLATE  JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2109 of
\n1979.\n<\/p>\n
     Appeal by\tSpecial Leave  from the\t Judgment and  Order
\ndated 7-5-1979 of the Allahabad High Court in Civil Revision
\nNo. 900 of 1978.\n<\/p>\n
     A.K.  Sen,\t B.S.  Banerjee\t and  R.N.  Govind  for\t the
\nAppellant.\n<\/p>\n
     J.P. Goyal and S.K. Jain for Respondent.\n<\/p>\n
     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\n     KRISHNA IYER,  J.-A brief\tback-drop leads to the short
\npoint in  issue. Chronic scarcity of accommodation in almost
\nevery part  of the  country has\t made ‘eviction’  litigation
\nexplosively considerable,  and the strict protection against
\nejectment, save\t upon restricted  grounds,  has\t become\t the
\npolicy of the State. Rent Control Legislation to give effect
\nto this\t policy exists everywhere, and we are concerned with
\none such  in the  State of  U.P. (U.P.\tAct<\/a> 13 of 1972). The
\nlegislature found  that rent  control  law  had\t a  chilling
\neffect on  new building\t construction, and  so, to encourage
\nmore building  operations, amended  the statute\t to release,
\nfrom  the   shackles  of   legislative\t restriction,\t‘new
\nconstructions’ for  a period  of ten  years. So\t much so,  a
\nlandlord who  had let  out his\tnew building  could  recover
\npossession  without   impediment  if   he  instituted\tsuch
\nproceeding within ten years of completion. The respondent is
\na landlady  who claims\tto fill the bill in this setting and
\nseeks to  evict\t the  appellant-tenant\tuntrammeled  by\t the
\nprovisions of  the Act. She has succeeded in both the courts
\nbelow and  the appellant challenges the order as illegal and
\nvitiated by a basic error of approach.\n<\/p>\n
     We should have made short work of it had there not been
\nthe need  for this  Court to  set the  sights right  in\t the
\nclass, of  litigation where  exemption from the operation of
\nthe Act\t is claimed  on the  ground that the construction is
\nnew and the case is filed within the ten-year moratorium. If
\nthe exemption  is erroneously  liberalised to  frustrate the
\nprincipal  measure  by\tfailure\t to  stick  to\tbasic  legal
\nprinciples, the jurisprudence of rent control may become too
\njejune to  be socially\teffective. That\t is why we examine a
\nfew fundamentals  here in  the decisional  process  of\tthis
\nclass of cases.\n<\/p>\n
     The area  of controversy,\tfactual and legal, is small.
\nThe respondent\tpurchased shop\tNo. 66 in the city of Jhansi
\nin 1969\t from one Brij Mohan (DW2), occupied the first floor
\nand allowed  the appellant,  as tenant, to occupy the ground
\nfloor in  1970 on  a  lease  deed  which  recited  that\t the
\nbuilding was  erected in  1965. In 1975 the present eviction
\naction was  instituted on  the basis  that the\tbuilding was
\nnew,  that   the  Act\tdid  not   debar  eviction   of\t new
\nconstructions put  up within  ten years of the suit and so a
\ndecree was inevitable.\n<\/p>\n
1037<\/span><\/p>\n
The tenant  resisted the claim on the plea that the building
\nwas constructed\t 50 years ago. The trial court negatived the
\ndefence and decreed eviction and this was upheld by the High
\nCourt.\n<\/p>\n
     If it  were a  bare finding  of fact we should not have
\nreopened it, but Shri A.K. Sen argues that fundamental flaws
\nin the\tunderstanding of  the law have vitiated the decision
\nwhich, if  left uncorrected,  will  spell  a  new  class  of
\nlitigation  for\t  eviction  by\t easy  resort  to  the\t‘new
\nconstruction  expedient.   Such\t possible   public  mischief
\npersuades us  to have a closer look at the Act to the extent
\nrelevant.\n<\/p>\n
     Shri J.P.\tGoel rightly  reminds us  that in the normal
\ncourse the appeal must be dismissed as concluded by findings
\nof fact.  But we  will probe  the matter  further to explore
\nwhether there  is any  substance in Shri A.K. Sen’s argument
\nof fundamental\tfailure\t bearing  on  the  legality  of\t the
\nconclusions. The  anatomy of  the Act  is substantially\t the
\nsame  as  that\tof  other  similar  legislations.  The\tmost
\nimportant feature  we have  to notice  is the exemption from
\napplication of\tthe provisions\tof the Act for the period of
\nten years  in respect  of new constructions. Section 2(2)<\/a> is
\nrelevant in this context and runs as follows:\n<\/p>\n
\t  Except as  provided in  sub-section (5) of section
\n     12<\/a> sub-section  (1A) of  section 21<\/a>, sub-section (2) of
\n     section 24<\/a>,  sections 24A<\/a>,\t 24B<\/a>, 24C<\/a> or sub-section (3)
\n     of section\t 29<\/a>, nothing  in this  Act shall  apply to a
\n     building during  a period of ten years from the date on
\n     which its construction is completed.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t       xxx\t      xxx\t     xxx
\n\t  Explanation  I.-For  the  purposes  of  this\tsub-
\n     section,\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (a) The construction of a building shall be deemed
\n     to have  been  completed  on  the\tdate  on  which\t the
\n     completion thereof is reported to or otherwise recorded
\n     by the  local authority having jurisdiction, and in the
\n     case of  a building  subject to assessment, the date on
\n     which the\tfirst assessment  thereof comes into effect,
\n     and where the said dates are different, the earliest of
\n     the said  dates, and in the absence of any such report,
\n     record or\tassessment, the date on which it is actually
\n     occupied  (not  including\toccupation  merely  for\t the
\n     purposes of  supervising the  construction or  guarding
\n     the building under construction) for the first time:
\n\t  Provided that\t there may  be\tdifferent  dates  of
\n     completion of  construction  in  respect  of  different
\n     parts of  a  building  which  are\teither\tdesigned  as
\n     separate units or are occupied
\n1038<\/span>
\n     separately by  the landlord  and one or more tenants or
\n     by different tenants.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (b) ‘construction’  includes any new constructions
\n     in place  of an existing building which has been wholly
\n     or substantially demolished;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (c) Where  such substantial addition is made to an
\n     existing building,\t that the  existing building becomes
\n     only a  minor part\t thereof, the  whole of the building
\n     including the  existing building  shall be deemed to be
\n     constructed on  the date  of  completion  of  the\tsaid
\n     addition.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
This sub-section  and its  construction is  decisive of\t the
\nfate of\t the appeal. Nothing in the rent control legislation
\nshall apply to a building “during a period of ten years from
\nthe date  on which its construction is completed.” The first
\nthing that  falls to  be emphasised is that in regard to all
\nbuildings  the\t Act  applies\tsave  where  this  exemption
\noperates. Therefore,  the landlord  who seeks exemption must
\nprove that  exception. The burden is on him to make out that
\nnotwithstanding the  rent control  legislation, his building
\nis out\tof its ambit. It is not for the tenant to prove that
\nthe building  has been\tconstructed beyond  a period  of ten
\nyears. But  it is  for the  landlady to\t make out  that\t the
\nconstruction has  been completed  within ten  years  of\t the
\nsuit. This  is\tsensible  not  merely  because\tthe  statute
\nexpressly states  so and the setting necessarily implies so,
\nbut also  because it is the landlady who knows best when the
\nbuilding was  completed, and  not the tenant. As between the
\ntwo, the  owner of the building must tell the court when the
\nbuilding  was  constructed,  and  not  the  tenant  thereof.
\nSpeaking generally, it is fair that the onus of establishing
\nthe date of construction of the building is squarely laid on
\nthe landlord,  although in  a small  category of cases where
\nthe landlord  is a  purchaser from  another, he will have to
\ndepend on his assignor to prove the fact.\n<\/p>\n
     Firstly,  therefore,   we\tmust   examine\twhether\t the
\nrespondent has\tmade out  her case  for exemption  from\t the
\noperation of  the Act  based on\t the  vital  fact  that\t the
\nbuilding has  been completed  only within  ten years  of the
\nsuit. The  second thing we have to remember is Explanation 1
\nquoted above.  When  is\t a  building  deemed  to  have\tbeen
\ncompleted? An  analysis of  Explanation 1  to s.2(2)  of the
\nU.P. Act<\/a> indicates:\n<\/p>\n
\t  (1)  Where a building has not been assessed, it is
\n\t       the date on which the completion was reported
\n\t       to, or  other  wise  recorded  by  the  local
\n\t       authority having jurisdiction.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
1039<\/span><\/p>\n
\t  (2)  Where a building has been assessed, it is the
\n\t       date on which the first assessment comes into
\n\t       effect.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  Provided that\t if the date on which the completion
\n     was reported  to, or  otherwise recorded  by, the local
\n     authority\tis  earlier  than  the\tdate  of  the  first
\n     assessment, the date of completion will be such earlier
\n     date.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (3)  Where  there   is  no   report,\t record\t  or
\n\t       assessment,  it\t is  the   date\t of   actual
\n\t       occupation for  the first  time (not being an
\n\t       occupation for the purpose of supervising the
\n\t       construction or\tguarding the  building under
\n\t       construction ).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     It is  common case\t that Shop Nos. 65 and 66 were owned
\nby a  common owner,  Shri Brij Mohan, DW2. He sold only Shop
\nNo. 66\tto the respondent. So, there is no doubt, that there
\nwas an\texisting building,  Shop No.  66, long\tprior to the
\nten-year period\t mentioned in  the statute. According to the
\ntestimony of  Shri Brij\t Mohan, DW2,  the  old\tconstruction
\ncontinued, but\tcertain additions and remodelling were done.
\nHe had\tsubmitted a  plan to  the local authority indicating
\nthe original  construction and\tthe proposed  additions, and
\nthat is\t marked as  Exhibit in\tthe  case.  This  shows\t the
\nexistence of  a\t prior\tbuilding,  the\tproposal  being\t for
\naddition  or   partial\treconstruction\tand  not  for  total
\ndemolition. If\twe go  by the  plan, it\t is not\t possible to
\nconclude automatically\tthat there is a new construction. If
\nwe go by Brij Mohan’s evidence, the owner of the building at
\nthe relevant  time, we\tcannot\tnecessarily  hold  that\t the
\nexisting building  has\tbeen  substantially  demolished\t and
\nreconstructed. Indeed,\this evidence  is to  the effect that
\nthe construction  such as  was made  was beyond\t the 10 year
\nperiod.\n<\/p>\n
     Unfortunately, it\tis not\tpossible for  the purchaser-
\nrespondent or  the tenant-appellant to give direct testimony
\nabout the  time of  the construction  or the  nature of\t the
\nconstruction vis-a-vis\tExplanation (b)\t or  (c).  The\tbest
\ntestimony is  the municipal  records about the completion of
\nthe  building\tand  the   verification\t by   the  municipal
\nauthorities as\tto whether  a new construction has come into
\nbeing or an old construction has been remodelled and, if so,
\nwhen exactly  the  completion  took  effect.  The  municipal
\nassessment  record   produced  in  the\tcourt  merely  state
\n“increased assessment”.\t It may\t suggest the existence of an
\nassessment which  has been  increased or  it may  perhaps be
\nargued that  when  the\tbuilding  was  reconstructed  a\t new
\nassessment  was\t made  which  was  more\t than  the  previous
\nassessment and, therefore,
\n1040<\/span>
\nwas described  as increased assessment. The oral evidence in
\nthe  case,   apart  from   what\t we   have   set   out,\t  is
\ninconsequential,  being\t second\t hand  testimony.  Even\t the
\nrecital in  the rent  deed that there was a new construction
\nis 1965-66  is by  the appellant and the respondent, neither
\nof whom\t has any direct knowledge about the construction. Of
\ncourse, an  admission by  the appellant\t is evidence against
\nhim but\t an admission is not always conclusive especially in
\nthe light of the municipal records such as are available and
\nthe burden such as has been laid by the statute.\n<\/p>\n
     Viewed in\tthis perspective,  the failure\tof the trial
\ncourt specifically to record when the building was completed
\nand what  was the  extent of  re-building, whether  it was a
\ncase  of   total  demolition   and  reconstruction  or\tsuch
\nextensive additions  as to push the existing building into a
\nminor part, becomes fatal. These basic issues have failed to
\nreceive any  attention from  the  courts  below.  A  finding
\nrecorded on  speculative basis is no finding and that is the
\nfate of the holding in the present case.\n<\/p>\n
     We do  not want  to dwell\ton the\tevidence in  greater
\ndetail because\twe propose  to remit  the case\tto the trial
\ncourt  (Court\tof  the\t First\tAdditional  District  Judge,
\nJhansi). It  is quite conceivable that the municipal records
\nbearing on  the completion  of the  construction  may  throw
\nconclusive light,  whatever might  have\t been  the  original
\nproposal in  the plan  submitted. It  is perfectly  possible
\nthat on\t a view\t of the\t earlier construction, vis a vis the
\ncompleted new  building, the  former may  form but  a  small
\npart. It  may also be that the implication of the expression
\n“increased assessment”\tmay be\texplained with\treference to
\nearlier assessment  records in\tthe municipality.  Moreover,
\nwhenever  a   new  building   is  completed,  a\t report\t has
\nstatutorily to\tbe made\t and only on a completion survey and
\ncertificate,  occupation   is  ordinarily  permitted.  These
\nrecords must  also be  available in  the office of the local
\nauthority. The statute makes it clear that reliance upon the
\nmunicipal records,  rather than on the lips of witnesses, is
\nindicated to determine the date of completion and the nature
\nof the\tconstruction.  This  statutory\tguideline  has\tbeen
\nwholly overlooked  and the  burden lying on the landlord has
\nnot been  appreciated. The result is that the eviction order
\nhas to be demolished.\n<\/p>\n
     It may still be open to the landlady-respondent to make
\nout his\t case by  producing better municipal evidence in the
\nlight of  what we have indicated. We do not wish to deny the
\nlandlady this  opportunity because  the trial  court has not
\napproached the\tproblem from the correct legal angle. We set
\naside the  judgment of\tthe courts  below and remit the case
\nfor hearing to the trial court. The trial court
\n1041<\/span>
\nwill give  an opportunity  to both  sides  to  adduce  fresh
\nevidence, documentary  and oral,  to make  out the ground of
\nexemption from\tthe application\t of the Act. Of course, when
\nthe entire  evidence is\t before the court, the onus of proof
\nwill play a lesser role.\n<\/p>\n
     Before parting  with the  case, we\t wish  to  notice  a
\nsubmission made\t by Shri Goel that the landlady’s son was an
\nunemployed engineer  who needed\t the premises  for  personal
\nrequirement. Even  if the  Act applies,\t it is\topen to\t the
\nlandlady to  make out  any of  the grounds under the Act for
\neviction. To  avoid prolixity  and delay of the proceedings,
\nwe permit  the trial  court to\tallow the  landlady, if\t she
\napplies in  that behalf,  to plead  on an alternative basis,
\nfor eviction on any of the specified grounds under the Act.\n<\/p>\n
     The appeal\t is allowed  and the  case remitted  to\t the
\nCourt of the Addl. District Judge, Jhansi for fresh disposal
\nin the light of the observations made above.
\nS.R. Appeal allowed.\n<\/p>\n
1042<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Ram Swaroop Rai vs Lilavathi on 7 May, 1980 Equivalent citations: 1982 AIR 945, 1980 SCR (3)1034 Author: V Krishnaiyer Bench: Krishnaiyer, V.R. PETITIONER: RAM SWAROOP RAI Vs. RESPONDENT: LILAVATHI DATE OF JUDGMENT07\/05\/1980 BENCH: KRISHNAIYER, V.R. BENCH: KRISHNAIYER, V.R. PATHAK, R.S. CITATION: 1982 AIR 945 1980 SCR (3)1034 1980 SCC (3) […]<\/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-251772","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nRam Swaroop Rai vs Lilavathi on 7 May, 1980 - 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\/ram-swaroop-rai-vs-lilavathi-on-7-may-1980\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Ram Swaroop Rai vs Lilavathi on 7 May, 1980 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-swaroop-rai-vs-lilavathi-on-7-may-1980\" \/>\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=\"1980-05-06T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-03-26T22:02:49+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=\"17 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ram-swaroop-rai-vs-lilavathi-on-7-may-1980#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ram-swaroop-rai-vs-lilavathi-on-7-may-1980\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Ram Swaroop Rai vs Lilavathi on 7 May, 1980\",\"datePublished\":\"1980-05-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-03-26T22:02:49+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ram-swaroop-rai-vs-lilavathi-on-7-may-1980\"},\"wordCount\":2347,\"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\\\/ram-swaroop-rai-vs-lilavathi-on-7-may-1980#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ram-swaroop-rai-vs-lilavathi-on-7-may-1980\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ram-swaroop-rai-vs-lilavathi-on-7-may-1980\",\"name\":\"Ram Swaroop Rai vs Lilavathi on 7 May, 1980 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1980-05-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-03-26T22:02:49+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ram-swaroop-rai-vs-lilavathi-on-7-may-1980#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ram-swaroop-rai-vs-lilavathi-on-7-may-1980\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ram-swaroop-rai-vs-lilavathi-on-7-may-1980#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Ram Swaroop Rai vs Lilavathi on 7 May, 1980\"}]},{\"@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":"Ram Swaroop Rai vs Lilavathi on 7 May, 1980 - 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\/ram-swaroop-rai-vs-lilavathi-on-7-may-1980","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Ram Swaroop Rai vs Lilavathi on 7 May, 1980 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-swaroop-rai-vs-lilavathi-on-7-may-1980","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1980-05-06T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-03-26T22:02:49+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":"17 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-swaroop-rai-vs-lilavathi-on-7-may-1980#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-swaroop-rai-vs-lilavathi-on-7-may-1980"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Ram Swaroop Rai vs Lilavathi on 7 May, 1980","datePublished":"1980-05-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-03-26T22:02:49+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-swaroop-rai-vs-lilavathi-on-7-may-1980"},"wordCount":2347,"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\/ram-swaroop-rai-vs-lilavathi-on-7-may-1980#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-swaroop-rai-vs-lilavathi-on-7-may-1980","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-swaroop-rai-vs-lilavathi-on-7-may-1980","name":"Ram Swaroop Rai vs Lilavathi on 7 May, 1980 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1980-05-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-03-26T22:02:49+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-swaroop-rai-vs-lilavathi-on-7-may-1980#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-swaroop-rai-vs-lilavathi-on-7-may-1980"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-swaroop-rai-vs-lilavathi-on-7-may-1980#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Ram Swaroop Rai vs Lilavathi on 7 May, 1980"}]},{"@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\/251772","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=251772"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/251772\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=251772"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=251772"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=251772"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}