{"id":257891,"date":"2009-01-20T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-01-19T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/naresh-chand-vs-smt-prem-lata-bakshi-on-20-january-2009"},"modified":"2019-04-08T13:15:23","modified_gmt":"2019-04-08T07:45:23","slug":"naresh-chand-vs-smt-prem-lata-bakshi-on-20-january-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/naresh-chand-vs-smt-prem-lata-bakshi-on-20-january-2009","title":{"rendered":"Naresh Chand vs Smt. Prem Lata Bakshi on 20 January, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur<\/div>\n
Naresh Chand vs Smt. Prem Lata Bakshi on 20 January, 2009<\/div>\n
           SBC SECOND APPEAL NO.107\/1991 -NARESH CHAND V\/S SMT. PREMLATA BAKSHI : JUDGMENT DTD. 20.1.2009\n\n\n                                                     1\/20\n\n               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT\n\n                                                    JODHPUR.\n\n              S.B. CIVIL SECOND APPEAL NO.107\/1991\n\n              Naresh Chand S\/O Sh. Surajmal\n\n                                                       versus\n\n                   Smt. Premlata Bakshi W\/o Sh. Mangal Singh\n\n\n\n                                               PRESENT\n\n                            HON'BLE Dr.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI\n\n         Mr.R.K. Thanvi, for the appellant\n         Mr.Sajjan Singh, }for the respondent.\n         Mr.B.K.Bhatnagar, }\nREPORTABLE\n\n              DATE OF JUDGMENT                         : 20th January, 2009.\n\n                                                  JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
              1.      This second appeal of the defendant – tenant pending for last<\/p>\n
              18 years in this Court was admitted on the following substantial<\/p>\n
              question of law framed by this Court on 6.9.1991:\n<\/p>\n
\n
                              “Can the dead-man’s personal necessity be a ground for<\/p>\n
                              ejectment?”\n<\/p>\n
 SBC SECOND APPEAL NO.107\/1991 -NARESH CHAND V\/S SMT. PREMLATA BAKSHI : JUDGMENT DTD. 20.1.2009<\/p>\n
                                          2\/20<\/span><\/p>\n
   2.      The plaintiff Smt. Premlata Bakshi W\/O Sh. Mangal Singh<\/p>\n
   Bakshi, who expired             before filing of the second appeal by the<\/p>\n
   defendant filed the eviction suit against the defendant – appellant in<\/p>\n
   the year 1981 on the ground of personal bonafide necessity of her<\/p>\n
   husband and son who was engaged as Inspector in the National<\/p>\n
   Insurance Company in respect of residential house situated at 24,<\/p>\n
   Chitragupt Marg, Udaipur, which was let out under an oral agreement<\/p>\n
   to the defenadnt on 15.3.1969 for a sum of Rs.80\/- per month as rent.<\/p>\n
   The bonafide need of the landlord was claimed on the ground that<\/p>\n
   her son is getting married on 1.7.1979 and after retirement of her<\/p>\n
   husband, he intends to work as property valuer and consultant<\/p>\n
   Engineer, therefore, the suit property i.e. the said residential house<\/p>\n
   would be required for residential and business need of the family<\/p>\n
   members.\n<\/p>\n
\n
   3.      After recording the evidence, the learned trial Court granted<\/p>\n
   partial eviction decree on                9.1.1985 directing eviction of the<\/p>\n
   defendant from the room including latrine bathroom situated at the<\/p>\n
   ground floor. The plaintiff filed first appeal against the said partial
\n SBC SECOND APPEAL NO.107\/1991 -NARESH CHAND V\/S SMT. PREMLATA BAKSHI : JUDGMENT DTD. 20.1.2009<\/p>\n
                                          3\/20<\/span><\/p>\n
   eviction decree before the first appellate Court of Additional Civil<\/p>\n
   Judge No.3, Udaipur which came to be allowed on 10.7.1991 and<\/p>\n
   instead of partial eviction, the appellate Court granted eviction decree<\/p>\n
   of the entire premises in favour of the plaintiff. The defendant does<\/p>\n
   not appear to have filed any cross-appeal against the partial eviction<\/p>\n
   decree by the learned trial Court.\n<\/p>\n
\n
   4.      The present second appeal was filed by the defendant – tenant<\/p>\n
   in this Court on 5.9.1991 and as already stated above was admitted on<\/p>\n
   a limited substantial question of law as quoted above on 6.9.1991 and<\/p>\n
   interim order against dispossession was also granted in favour of the<\/p>\n
   defendant on 6.9.1991 which                    has continued throughout. The<\/p>\n
   defendant – appellant has filed an application under Order 41 Rule 27<\/p>\n
   C.P.C. in this Court on 14.3.2000 with the averment that the plaintiff<\/p>\n
   had sold the said suit property on 15.9.1999 to one Shanti Lal S\/O Sh.<\/p>\n
   Nemi Chand Chittora of which a registered notice was sent to the<\/p>\n
   defendant Naresh Chand by the plaintiff on 26.1.2000 as well as by<\/p>\n
   the purchaser through his advocate on 2.2.2000. Copies of these<\/p>\n
   documents are also placed on record along with said application<\/p>\n
   under Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C.\n<\/p>\n
 SBC SECOND APPEAL NO.107\/1991 -NARESH CHAND V\/S SMT. PREMLATA BAKSHI : JUDGMENT DTD. 20.1.2009<\/p>\n
                                          4\/20<\/span><\/p>\n
   5.      Mr. R.K. Thanvi, learned counsel for the appellant – defendant<\/p>\n
   urged that since the property in question has already been sold,<\/p>\n
   therefore, the defendant cannot be now evicted from the suit premises<\/p>\n
   as the personal need of erstwhile owner – plaintiff no more exists. He<\/p>\n
   relied upon the following judgments in support of his submissions:<\/p>\n
           1)      Preetam Singh V\/s Narendra Kumar and ors. – 1998<\/p>\n
           DNJ (Raj.) 293.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           2)      Sheikh Jehangir V\/s Smt. S. Kaushilyabai and ors. –<\/p>\n
           1987 (Supp.) SCC 630.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           3)      Rakesh Gupta V\/s Ahmed Farooq – 1992(2) RLW 398.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
   6.      Mr. Sajjan Singh and Mr.B.K.Bhatnagar, the learned counsel<\/p>\n
   for the respondent – plaintiff on the other hand opposed these<\/p>\n
   submissions and relied upon following judgments in support of his<\/p>\n
   submissions:\n<\/p>\n
\n
           1)      Dharam Chand V\/s Karam Chand – 2001(3) RLR 713
\n SBC SECOND APPEAL NO.107\/1991 -NARESH CHAND V\/S SMT. PREMLATA BAKSHI : JUDGMENT DTD. 20.1.2009<\/p>\n
                                          5\/20<\/span><\/p>\n
           2)      Mahendra Raghunathdas                   Gupta V\/s Vishvanath<\/p>\n
           Bhikaji Mogul and ors. – 1997(2) Apex Court Journal 10<\/p>\n
           (S.C.).\n<\/p>\n
           3)      Ram Saran Sharma V\/s Smt. Kamla Acharya – 2001(2)<\/p>\n
           WLC (Raj.) 565.\n<\/p>\n
\n
   7.      I have heard the learned counsels at length and given my<\/p>\n
   thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions and judgments cited<\/p>\n
   at the Bar and record of the case.\n<\/p>\n
\n
   8.      At the outset, the application under Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C.<\/p>\n
   bringing on record the fact that the suit property in question was sold<\/p>\n
   by the plaintiff on 15.9.1999 during the pendency of this second<\/p>\n
   appeal before this Court deserves to be allowed and the same is<\/p>\n
   hereby allowed and the documents placed on record therewith are<\/p>\n
   liable to be considered by this Court.\n<\/p>\n
\n
   9.      Law about entertaining second appeal on substantial question<\/p>\n
   of law under Section 100 C.P.C. is now well settled and by catena of<\/p>\n
   judgments,        it is well settled that the findings of fact about the
\n SBC SECOND APPEAL NO.107\/1991 -NARESH CHAND V\/S SMT. PREMLATA BAKSHI : JUDGMENT DTD. 20.1.2009<\/p>\n
                                          6\/20<\/span><\/p>\n
   personal bonafide necessity of the landlord do not give rise to any<\/p>\n
   substantial question of law unless the said findings are perverse and<\/p>\n
   based on no relevant evidence at all. It is also equally well settled<\/p>\n
   that bonafide need of the landlord as on the date of filing of the suit<\/p>\n
   for eviction is to be considered by the Court and it is also equally well<\/p>\n
   settled that question of title is irrelevant in the eviction proceedings<\/p>\n
   under the Rent Control Act.\n<\/p>\n
\n
   10.     Since bonafide need was claimed by the landlord – plaintiff for<\/p>\n
   her husband as well as her son as stated above on the date of filing of<\/p>\n
   the suit and the Courts below concurrently found that the said<\/p>\n
   bonafide need existed on the date of filing suit and while the trial<\/p>\n
   Court granted the decree for partial eviction, the first appellate Court<\/p>\n
   granted the decree of entire residential house in question, the said<\/p>\n
   findings of facts which are based on relevant evidence and material<\/p>\n
   did not deserve to be disturbed at all and the second appeal was liable<\/p>\n
   to be dismissed at the threshold as no substantial question of law<\/p>\n
   could be said to be arising in the present appeal. However, the fact<\/p>\n
   remains that since this appeal came to be admitted by this Court by<\/p>\n
   framing the aforesaid          question of law and which remained pending
\n SBC SECOND APPEAL NO.107\/1991 -NARESH CHAND V\/S SMT. PREMLATA BAKSHI : JUDGMENT DTD. 20.1.2009<\/p>\n
                                          7\/20<\/span><\/p>\n
   here for long number of 18 years in this Court, subsequent<\/p>\n
   developments in the form of death of husband of the plaintiff and sale<\/p>\n
   of property by her arose. The question which arises now in these<\/p>\n
   circumstances for consideration by this Court in the changed<\/p>\n
   circumstances is as to whether now the purchaser of the suit property<\/p>\n
   can get fruits of the decree passed by the Courts below and can get<\/p>\n
   the suit premises evicted or not or whether the defendant – tenant<\/p>\n
   should be allowed to remain in the property for next 20 to 30 years<\/p>\n
   after the new purchaser of the property is asked to file a fresh suit<\/p>\n
   establishing his own bonafide need of the said suit property or on<\/p>\n
   other grounds of eviction as as specified in the Rent Control Act.<\/p>\n
   11.     A perusal of the sale-deed produced along with the application<\/p>\n
   under Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C. shows that the said property was sold<\/p>\n
   by the plaintiff to the purchaser with clear stipulation that the said<\/p>\n
   property is in possession of the tenant since 15.3.1969 and therefore,<\/p>\n
   the vacant possession cannot be handed over to the purchaser and<\/p>\n
   only symbolic possession is being handed over and the purchaser will<\/p>\n
   be treated to be in possession of the property in the same manner in<\/p>\n
   which the plaintiff was. This was para 5 of the sale-deed and para 10
\n SBC SECOND APPEAL NO.107\/1991 -NARESH CHAND V\/S SMT. PREMLATA BAKSHI : JUDGMENT DTD. 20.1.2009<\/p>\n
                                          8\/20<\/span><\/p>\n
   of the sale-deed also states that the eviction decree in respect of said<\/p>\n
   suit property has already been passed by the first appellate Court<\/p>\n
   against which the defendant has filed second appeal before High<\/p>\n
   Court. Para 3 of the sale-deed also stipulates that the seller is<\/p>\n
   transferring       all her rights        in    the suit property including the<\/p>\n
   easementary rights to the purchaser. Thus, the right of the plaintiff<\/p>\n
   which vested in her including the right to get the vacant possession of<\/p>\n
   the suit property stood vested in the purchaser on the date of sale i.e.<\/p>\n
   15.3.1999 and the purchaser stepped into her shoes entitled to all the<\/p>\n
   rights and fruits to enjoy the said property thereafter.<\/p>\n
   12.     It is not in dispute that the defendant – appellant in full know of<\/p>\n
   this sale of property through the notice served upon him in the year<\/p>\n
   2000 which are placed by the appellant along with the application<\/p>\n
   under Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C., did not take any steps to implead the<\/p>\n
   purchaser of the property as party in the present second appeal though<\/p>\n
   this development took place during the pendency of this appeal.<\/p>\n
   Therefore, the purchaser of the property naturally could not have any<\/p>\n
   say in this litigation. This Court is of the opinion that it was<\/p>\n
   incumbent upon the appellant to implead the purchaser of the
\n SBC SECOND APPEAL NO.107\/1991 -NARESH CHAND V\/S SMT. PREMLATA BAKSHI : JUDGMENT DTD. 20.1.2009<\/p>\n
                                          9\/20<\/span><\/p>\n
   property      as respondent after coming to know of the sale of the<\/p>\n
   property to him and in absence of the same, adverse inference against<\/p>\n
   the appellant – defendant deserves to be drawn. Naturally after sale of<\/p>\n
   the property, the plaintiff or original owner lost her interest in<\/p>\n
   pursuing this litigation in this Court, which could have been pursued<\/p>\n
   by the new purchaser and the owner of the property only if he had<\/p>\n
   been impleaded as respondent at the instance of appellant –<\/p>\n
   defendant. The question is, therefore, whether the defendant – tenant<\/p>\n
   can be allowed to enjoy this property for all times to come at a<\/p>\n
   nominal rent of Rs.80 per month which also it is not known whether<\/p>\n
   he is paying to the new landlord of the property or not. It has been<\/p>\n
   held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mahendra<\/p>\n
   Raghunathdas Gupta (supra) that attornment by the tenant is not<\/p>\n
   necessary upon transfer of landlord’s right and it is automatic. In<\/p>\n
   para 5 and 6 of the said judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has<\/p>\n
   held as under:\n<\/p>\n
\n
                   “5……… It is well settled that a transferee of the<\/p>\n
                   landlord’s right steps into the shoes of the landlord<\/p>\n
                   with all the rights and liabilities of the transferor
\n SBC SECOND APPEAL NO.107\/1991 -NARESH CHAND V\/S SMT. PREMLATA BAKSHI : JUDGMENT DTD. 20.1.2009<\/p>\n
                                         10\/20<\/span><\/p>\n
                   landlord in respect of the subsisting tenancy. The<\/p>\n
                   section does not require that the transfer of the right of<\/p>\n
                   the landlord can take effect only if the tenant’s attorn to<\/p>\n
                   him. Attornment by the tenant is not necessary to<\/p>\n
                   confer validity of the transfer of the landlord’s rights.<\/p>\n
                   Since attornment by the tenant is not required, a notice<\/p>\n
                   under Section 106 in terms of the old terms of lease by<\/p>\n
                   the transferor landlord would be proper and so also the<\/p>\n
                   suit for ejectment.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                   6.       Attornment would, however, be desirable as it<\/p>\n
                   means the acknowledgement of relation of a tenant to a<\/p>\n
                   new landlord. It also implies continuity of tenancy.”<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
   13.             This Court in the case of Ram Saran Sharma (supra)<\/p>\n
   has also held that upon transfer of property through gift and where<\/p>\n
   the tenant was served with a notice intimating the fact of gift, the<\/p>\n
   plaintiff was vested with all rights of original landlord and was<\/p>\n
   entitled to evict the tenant. In para 17 of the said judgment, this<\/p>\n
   Court has held as under:\n<\/p>\n
 SBC SECOND APPEAL NO.107\/1991 -NARESH CHAND V\/S SMT. PREMLATA BAKSHI : JUDGMENT DTD. 20.1.2009<\/p>\n
                                         11\/20<\/span><\/p>\n
                   “Section 109 of the Act of 1882, it is held that Section<\/p>\n
                   109 of the said Act does not require service of notice on<\/p>\n
                   the tenant, or alienation of property, to create<\/p>\n
                   relationship of landlord and tenant between the<\/p>\n
                   transferee landlord and                the existing tenant. The<\/p>\n
                   transferee of the lessor steps into the shoes and possess<\/p>\n
                   all the rights which the transferor has and the<\/p>\n
                   attornment is not a condition precedent, to give validity<\/p>\n
                   to the transfer made in favour of the transferee. Section 2<\/p>\n
                   of the Act of 1882 specifically provided that a transfer of<\/p>\n
                   property interests, which the transferor is capable of<\/p>\n
                   passing in the property, including the legal incidents<\/p>\n
                   thereof and such incidents include the rents and profits<\/p>\n
                   thereof. Once the title of the assignee is complete, the<\/p>\n
                   attornment is automatic not dependent on the tenant’s<\/p>\n
                   attorning or agreeing to the attornment.”\n<\/p>\n
\n
   14.     In the case of Dharam Chand V\/s Karam Chand (supra) this<\/p>\n
   Court also held referring to decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the<\/p>\n
   case of Gaya Prasad V\/s Pradeep Srivastava reported in (2001) 2
\n SBC SECOND APPEAL NO.107\/1991 -NARESH CHAND V\/S SMT. PREMLATA BAKSHI : JUDGMENT DTD. 20.1.2009<\/p>\n
                                         12\/20<\/span><\/p>\n
   SCC 604 that it would be pernicious and unjust to shut the door<\/p>\n
   before an applicant just on the eve of litigation reaching final stage<\/p>\n
   merely on the ground that certain development occurred pendente lite<\/p>\n
   because the opposite party succeeds in prolonging the matter for such<\/p>\n
   unduly long period. Para 5 of the said judgment quoted below for<\/p>\n
   ready reference:\n<\/p>\n
\n
                   “5. Admittedly the plaintiff instituted the suit for eviction<\/p>\n
                   on April 22,1982. The plaintiff could not see the final<\/p>\n
                   result of the litigation in his life time and died on<\/p>\n
                   January 21, 2000 during the pendency of this second<\/p>\n
                   appeal. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Gaya<\/p>\n
                   Prasad V\/s Pradee Srivastava (2001) 2 SCC 604 had<\/p>\n
                   occasion to consider the similar situation. It was urged<\/p>\n
                   on behalf of the tenant before the Hon’ble Supreme Court<\/p>\n
                   to take into account the subsequent events. Dismissing<\/p>\n
                   the appeal the Hon’ble Supreme Court indicated that<\/p>\n
                   the crucial date for deciding the bonafides of the<\/p>\n
                   requirements of the landlord is the date of his<\/p>\n
                   application for eviction. The antecedent days may
\n SBC SECOND APPEAL NO.107\/1991 -NARESH CHAND V\/S SMT. PREMLATA BAKSHI : JUDGMENT DTD. 20.1.2009<\/p>\n
                                         13\/20<\/span><\/p>\n
                   perhaps have utility for him to reach the said crucial date<\/p>\n
                   of consideration. If every subsequent development<\/p>\n
                   during the post-petition period is to be taken into account<\/p>\n
                   for judging the bonafides of the requirement pleaded by<\/p>\n
                   the landlord there would perhaps be no end so long as<\/p>\n
                   the unfortunate situation in the litigative slow process<\/p>\n
                   subsists. During 23 years, after the landlord moved for<\/p>\n
                   eviction on the ground that his son needed the building,<\/p>\n
                   neither the landlord nor his son is expected to remain<\/p>\n
                   idle without doing any work, lest joining any new<\/p>\n
                   assignment or starting any new work would be at the<\/p>\n
                   perils of forfeiting his requirement to occupy the<\/p>\n
                   building. It is a stark reality that the longer is the life of<\/p>\n
                   the litigation the more would be the number of<\/p>\n
                   developments           sprouting       up      during       the     long<\/p>\n
                   interregnums. It would be pernicious and unjust to shut<\/p>\n
                   the door before an applicant just on the eve of his<\/p>\n
                   reaching the finale, after passing through all the previous<\/p>\n
                   levels of the litigation merely on the ground that certain<\/p>\n
                   developments occurred pendencte lite, because the
\n SBC SECOND APPEAL NO.107\/1991 -NARESH CHAND V\/S SMT. PREMLATA BAKSHI : JUDGMENT DTD. 20.1.2009<\/p>\n
                                         14\/20<\/span><\/p>\n
                   opposite party succeeds in prolonging the matter for such<\/p>\n
                   unduly long period.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n<\/blockquote>\n
   15.             This Court in the case of Ratan Lal V\/s Brij Mohan –<\/p>\n
   S.B. Civil Second Appeal No.319\/2009 decided on 7.11.2008 held as<\/p>\n
   under:\n<\/p>\n
\n
                   “6.      …………After death of elder son Dinesh                   on<\/p>\n
                   1.11.1996, the bonafide need which was claimed for<\/p>\n
                   elder son Dinesh should be deemed to continue for his<\/p>\n
                   widow and grand-son. Such subsequent event could<\/p>\n
                   definitely be taken into account by the first appellate<\/p>\n
                   Court while deciding the appeal. Even the trial Court<\/p>\n
                   while returning its findings on 3.11.2006 was very well<\/p>\n
                   aware of these facts, still the learned trial Court found<\/p>\n
                   that the plaintiff failed to establish his bonafide need<\/p>\n
                   upon death of sons of plaintiff landlord Brij Mohan. The<\/p>\n
                   bonafide need of the plaintiff – respondent in the present<\/p>\n
                   case could not be said to be mere whims and desire of<\/p>\n
                   the landlord, but bonafide need further aggravated on
\n SBC SECOND APPEAL NO.107\/1991 -NARESH CHAND V\/S SMT. PREMLATA BAKSHI : JUDGMENT DTD. 20.1.2009<\/p>\n
                                         15\/20<\/span><\/p>\n
                   the death of sons of the landlord. It is indeed unfortunate<\/p>\n
                   that the learned trial Court instead of appreciating these<\/p>\n
                   facts in correct perspective………..”<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
   16.     In a recent decision in the case of LRs. of Smt. Bilam Kanwar<\/p>\n
   V\/s Pushp Chand – S.B. Civil Second Appeal No.110\/2005 decided<\/p>\n
   on 17.1.2009 , this Court again held in para 5 as under:<\/p>\n
                   “5…………..It was not in dispute before the learned trial<\/p>\n
                   Court that after death of her son plaintiff Bilam Kanwar<\/p>\n
                   sought to add grounds for eviction of personal bonafide<\/p>\n
                   necessity for the business of her grand-son Gautam, who<\/p>\n
                   was 10th class pass. There was no evidence on record to<\/p>\n
                   show that the plaintiff – respondent had any alternative<\/p>\n
                   shop or was in possession of so called shop situated at<\/p>\n
                   Ada Bazar, Jodhpur. The fact that the said grand-son<\/p>\n
                   Gautam was carrying on the business in a shop owned by<\/p>\n
                   one Bhagat Singh Surana in a small shop of 6ft x 6ft<\/p>\n
                   was proved and could not be controverted before the<\/p>\n
                   learned trial Court……\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
 SBC SECOND APPEAL NO.107\/1991 -NARESH CHAND V\/S SMT. PREMLATA BAKSHI : JUDGMENT DTD. 20.1.2009<\/p>\n
                                         16\/20<\/span><\/p>\n
                   6.       In the case of Ragavendra Kumar V\/s Firm Prem<\/p>\n
                   Machinery and Co. reported in (2000) 1 SCC 679, the<\/p>\n
                   Hon’ble Apex Court held that it is settled position of law<\/p>\n
                   that the landlord is the best judge                       of his own<\/p>\n
                   requirement for residential or business purposes and has<\/p>\n
                   complete freedom in the matter and therefore, the<\/p>\n
                   appellant landlord stating in evidence that he owned<\/p>\n
                   several other shops and houses, but they were not vacant<\/p>\n
                   and also that the suit premises were suitable for the<\/p>\n
                   proposed business, the Hon’ble Apex Court granted<\/p>\n
                   eviction decree and dismissed the tenant’s appeal.”<\/p>\n
   17.     The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sheikh Jehangir V\/s<\/p>\n
   Smt. S. Kaushilyabai and ors (supra) in view of clear inhibition<\/p>\n
   contained in Section 10(3)(iii) of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and<\/p>\n
   Eviction) Control Act, 1960 held that in view of clear inhibition in the<\/p>\n
   said provisions against institution of a suit by a purchaser on the<\/p>\n
   ground of bonafide personal necessity for a period of three months<\/p>\n
   from the date of purchase, therefore, the suit could not be brought by
\n SBC SECOND APPEAL NO.107\/1991 -NARESH CHAND V\/S SMT. PREMLATA BAKSHI : JUDGMENT DTD. 20.1.2009<\/p>\n
                                         17\/20<\/span><\/p>\n
   the purchaser till the expiry of the said period calculated from the date<\/p>\n
   of sale-deed. The Supreme Court therefore held that the suit for<\/p>\n
   eviction was liable to be withdrawn with a liberty to the purchaser to<\/p>\n
   file a fresh suit. This judgment relied upon by the counsel for the<\/p>\n
   defendant – appellant clearly is distinguishable and turns upon the<\/p>\n
   specific provisions in A.P. Act<\/a> prohibiting the purchaser to institute a<\/p>\n
   suit within 3 months from the date of purchase of the said property.<\/p>\n
   There is no such provision in Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 1950.<\/p>\n
   Therefore, the said judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for<\/p>\n
   the appellant is of no help.\n<\/p>\n
\n
   18.             Similarly, the judgment in the case of Preetam Singh<\/p>\n
   V\/s Narendra Singh, this Court dealing with the issue in revisional<\/p>\n
   jurisdiction held that where the plaintiff had sold out the demise<\/p>\n
   premises, the purchaser should establish his own bonafide need and<\/p>\n
   therefore, had right to be impleaded under Order 22 Rule 10 C.P.C.<\/p>\n
   in the suit filed by the erstwhile owner. The Court further observed<\/p>\n
   that the purchaser could not evict the tenant on the bonafide need of<\/p>\n
   the erstwhile owner and therefore,               was liable to be impleaded and<\/p>\n
   the revision petition filed by the defendant was dismissed. This case
\n SBC SECOND APPEAL NO.107\/1991 -NARESH CHAND V\/S SMT. PREMLATA BAKSHI : JUDGMENT DTD. 20.1.2009<\/p>\n
                                         18\/20<\/span><\/p>\n
   is also distinguishable inasmuch as this Court only allowed the new<\/p>\n
   purchaser to join the litigation at the trial stage under Order 22 Rule<\/p>\n
   10 C.P.C. This case supports the conclusion drawn by this Court that<\/p>\n
   purchaser steps into the shoes of the existing landlord – plaintiff and<\/p>\n
   could be allowed to have fruits of the said decree as property rights<\/p>\n
   including the right of vacant possession of the suit property stood<\/p>\n
   transferred under the sale-deed.\n<\/p>\n
\n
   19.     Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that not only the<\/p>\n
   question framed by this Court while admitting the present appeal<\/p>\n
   deserves to be answered against the appellant – defendant by holding<\/p>\n
   that the bonafide need of the plaintiff continues even after death of<\/p>\n
   her husband as the bonafide need was claimed for her husband as<\/p>\n
   well as her son and it deserves to be further held that the purchaser of<\/p>\n
   the suit property during the pendency of present second appeal who<\/p>\n
   steps into the shoes of the plaintiff shall be                    entitled to vacant<\/p>\n
   possession of the suit property in pursuance of the decree passed by<\/p>\n
   two Courts below which is liable to be upheld by this Court as no<\/p>\n
   perversity in those findings is found by this Court. In view of the fact<\/p>\n
   that the bonafide need of the plaintiff – landlord on the date of filing
\n SBC SECOND APPEAL NO.107\/1991 -NARESH CHAND V\/S SMT. PREMLATA BAKSHI : JUDGMENT DTD. 20.1.2009<\/p>\n
                                         19\/20<\/span><\/p>\n
   of the suit is relevant, subsequent events in the form of sale of said<\/p>\n
   property does not ipso facto up-set the decree of eviction.                           The<\/p>\n
   attornment in favour of purchaser was automatic and did not depend<\/p>\n
   upon the acceptance of the same by the defendant – tenant. The<\/p>\n
   appellant – defendant is, therefore, not entitled to any relief in the<\/p>\n
   present second appeal, which is found to be devoid of merit and the<\/p>\n
   same is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.<\/p>\n
   20.     The appellant – defendant shall handover vacant and peaceful<\/p>\n
   possession of the suit house in question to the purchaser, the new<\/p>\n
   landlord within a period of two months from today. The appellant –<\/p>\n
   defendant shall also pay arrears of rent and mesne profits if any<\/p>\n
   within two months and further enhanced mesne profit of Rs.1000\/-<\/p>\n
   per month to him with effect from January, 2009 payable every month<\/p>\n
   before 15th of succeeding month till the actual handing over of the<\/p>\n
   vacant and peaceful possession of the suit property to the landlord<\/p>\n
   Shanti Lal Chittora. The decree be made accordingly. If the appellant<\/p>\n
   – defendant fails to handover vacant and peaceful possession of the<\/p>\n
   suit house in question to him within a period of two months from<\/p>\n
   today as aforesaid or fails to pay mesne profit including the arrears of
\n SBC SECOND APPEAL NO.107\/1991 -NARESH CHAND V\/S SMT. PREMLATA BAKSHI : JUDGMENT DTD. 20.1.2009<\/p>\n
                                         20\/20<\/span><\/p>\n
   rent and mesne profit as directed above, the landlord shall not only<\/p>\n
   be entitled to seek execution of the decree in normal course, but the<\/p>\n
   appellant – defendant may also render himself liable for action under<\/p>\n
   the contempt law. Copy of this judgment may be sent to the parties as<\/p>\n
   well as the purchaser or attorned landlord Shanti Lal Chittora at his<\/p>\n
   address        given in sale-deed i.e. 92, Mandi Ki Nal, Udaipur,<\/p>\n
   immediately.\n<\/p>\n
\n
                                                          (Dr.VINEET KOTHARI)J.\n<\/p>\n
\n           Ss\/-<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur Naresh Chand vs Smt. Prem Lata Bakshi on 20 January, 2009 SBC SECOND APPEAL NO.107\/1991 -NARESH CHAND V\/S SMT. PREMLATA BAKSHI : JUDGMENT DTD. 20.1.2009 1\/20 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR. S.B. CIVIL SECOND APPEAL NO.107\/1991 Naresh Chand S\/O Sh. Surajmal versus Smt. Premlata Bakshi […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,19],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-257891","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-rajasthan-high-court-jodhpur"],"yoast_head":"\nNaresh Chand vs Smt. Prem Lata Bakshi on 20 January, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/naresh-chand-vs-smt-prem-lata-bakshi-on-20-january-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Naresh Chand vs Smt. Prem Lata Bakshi on 20 January, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/naresh-chand-vs-smt-prem-lata-bakshi-on-20-january-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2009-01-19T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-04-08T07:45:23+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=\"19 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/naresh-chand-vs-smt-prem-lata-bakshi-on-20-january-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/naresh-chand-vs-smt-prem-lata-bakshi-on-20-january-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Naresh Chand vs Smt. Prem Lata Bakshi on 20 January, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-01-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-04-08T07:45:23+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/naresh-chand-vs-smt-prem-lata-bakshi-on-20-january-2009\"},\"wordCount\":3796,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/naresh-chand-vs-smt-prem-lata-bakshi-on-20-january-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/naresh-chand-vs-smt-prem-lata-bakshi-on-20-january-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/naresh-chand-vs-smt-prem-lata-bakshi-on-20-january-2009\",\"name\":\"Naresh Chand vs Smt. Prem Lata Bakshi on 20 January, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-01-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-04-08T07:45:23+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/naresh-chand-vs-smt-prem-lata-bakshi-on-20-january-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/naresh-chand-vs-smt-prem-lata-bakshi-on-20-january-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/naresh-chand-vs-smt-prem-lata-bakshi-on-20-january-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Naresh Chand vs Smt. Prem Lata Bakshi on 20 January, 2009\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Naresh Chand vs Smt. Prem Lata Bakshi on 20 January, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/naresh-chand-vs-smt-prem-lata-bakshi-on-20-january-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Naresh Chand vs Smt. Prem Lata Bakshi on 20 January, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/naresh-chand-vs-smt-prem-lata-bakshi-on-20-january-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-01-19T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-04-08T07:45:23+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":"19 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/naresh-chand-vs-smt-prem-lata-bakshi-on-20-january-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/naresh-chand-vs-smt-prem-lata-bakshi-on-20-january-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Naresh Chand vs Smt. Prem Lata Bakshi on 20 January, 2009","datePublished":"2009-01-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-04-08T07:45:23+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/naresh-chand-vs-smt-prem-lata-bakshi-on-20-january-2009"},"wordCount":3796,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/naresh-chand-vs-smt-prem-lata-bakshi-on-20-january-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/naresh-chand-vs-smt-prem-lata-bakshi-on-20-january-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/naresh-chand-vs-smt-prem-lata-bakshi-on-20-january-2009","name":"Naresh Chand vs Smt. Prem Lata Bakshi on 20 January, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-01-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-04-08T07:45:23+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/naresh-chand-vs-smt-prem-lata-bakshi-on-20-january-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/naresh-chand-vs-smt-prem-lata-bakshi-on-20-january-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/naresh-chand-vs-smt-prem-lata-bakshi-on-20-january-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Naresh Chand vs Smt. Prem Lata Bakshi on 20 January, 2009"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/257891","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=257891"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/257891\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=257891"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=257891"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=257891"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}