{"id":269213,"date":"2007-04-04T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-04-03T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-krishna-kumar-vs-ms-vrindavan-hotel-p-ltd-on-4-april-2007"},"modified":"2015-01-10T23:50:20","modified_gmt":"2015-01-10T18:20:20","slug":"k-krishna-kumar-vs-ms-vrindavan-hotel-p-ltd-on-4-april-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-krishna-kumar-vs-ms-vrindavan-hotel-p-ltd-on-4-april-2007","title":{"rendered":"K.Krishna Kumar vs M\/S.Vrindavan Hotel (P) Ltd on 4 April, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
K.Krishna Kumar vs M\/S.Vrindavan Hotel (P) Ltd on 4 April, 2007<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nRCRev No. 64 of 2007()\n\n\n1. K.KRISHNA KUMAR,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. M\/S.VRINDAVAN HOTEL (P) LTD.,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.VARGHESE C.KURIAKOSE\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.P.K.RAVISANKAR\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMAN\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC\n\n Dated :04\/04\/2007\n\n O R D E R\n                P.R.RAMAN & ANTONY DOMINIC, JJ.\n\n                ========================\n\n                         R.C.R. NO.64 OF 2007\n\n                  ======================\n\n                Dated this the 4th day of April, 2007\n\n\n                                  O R D E R\n<\/pre>\n
Antony Dominic, J.\n<\/p>\n
\n
      The   tenant   in   RCP   No.59\/2003   on   the   file   of   the   IIIrd<\/p>\n
Additional   Munsiff   and   Rent   Control   Court,   Ernakulam,   whose<\/p>\n
eviction   under   Section   11   (4)(v)   of   the   Kerala   Buildings   (Lease<\/p>\n
and Rent Control) Act 1965 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act’<\/p>\n
for short) was affirmed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority<\/p>\n
by its judgment in RCA No.103\/2004, is the Revision Petitioner.<\/p>\n
2.    According   to   the   respondent\/landlord,     petition   schedule<\/p>\n
premises belong to the respondent company and was let out to<\/p>\n
the tenant for business purposes in the year 1985 for a monthly<\/p>\n
rent of Rs.1,000\/-.  On the expiry of the initially agreed period of<\/p>\n
5 years, the rent was enhanced to Rs.1,500\/- and the tenant still<\/p>\n
continues  to  retain   possession  of  the  premises.    It  was alleged<\/p>\n
that   the   tenant   conducted   various   businesses   in   the   building,<\/p>\n
the   last   of   which   was   a   medical   shop   in   the   name   and   style<\/p>\n
`Vinayaka   Medicals’   and   that   since   1997,   he   has   not   been<\/p>\n
conducting   any  business   and  the  premises   is   remaining   closed<\/p>\n
RCR 64\/2007<\/p>\n
                                       : 2 :<\/span><\/p>\n
since   then.     According   to   the   landlord,   the   above   facts<\/p>\n
constituted a case of cessation of occupation of the building, as<\/p>\n
provided for in Section 11(4)(v) of the Act, rendering the tenant<\/p>\n
liable to be evicted in terms of the said provision.<\/p>\n
3.    The   tenant   contended   that   he   was   still   occupying   the<\/p>\n
premises.     According   to   him,   he   was   initially   conducting   a<\/p>\n
business   in   readymade   garments,   thereafter   ayurvedic<\/p>\n
medicines and still later a pharmacy store in the name and style<\/p>\n
of `Vinayaka Medicals’.  It was stated that the landlord had filed<\/p>\n
RCP   No.80\/96   seeking   his   eviction   under   Section   11(3)   of   the<\/p>\n
Act, which was dismissed by all Courts.   He had alleged that in<\/p>\n
order to make it impossible for him to continue business in the<\/p>\n
premises, the landlord has been interfering in his occupation of<\/p>\n
the building in various ways. Power Supply to the premises was<\/p>\n
disconnected   in   1997,   which   compelled   him   to   move   the<\/p>\n
Accommodation   Controller   by   filing   ACP   No.3\/2000   for   getting<\/p>\n
the said amenity restored.  He stated that the matter had to be<\/p>\n
fought   upto   this   Court   and   finally   electric   supply   was   restored<\/p>\n
only   in   2001.     Due   to   want   of   power   he   had   to   wind   up   his<\/p>\n
pharmaceutical  business  and when efforts  were made  to make<\/p>\n
the   premises   suitable   for   alternate   business,   the   landlord<\/p>\n
RCR 64\/2007<\/p>\n
                                    : 3 :<\/span><\/p>\n
prevented   him   by   obtaining   an   order   of   injunction   in   O.S.<\/p>\n
No.1737   of   2000   filed   in   the   Additional   Munsiff’s   Court,<\/p>\n
Ernakulam.     It   was  contended   that  since  March\/   April   2003,  he<\/p>\n
has   been   utilising   the   premises   for   storage   of   cassettes,   in<\/p>\n
connection with his business concern, `Kalyani Audios’, Diwan’s<\/p>\n
Road,   Cochin.       According   to   him   there   has   not   been   any<\/p>\n
cessation   of   occupation   as   contemplated   in  Section   11(4)(v)  of<\/p>\n
the Act and that the petition deserved to be dismissed.<\/p>\n
4.    Before the Rent Control Court evidence was let in by both<\/p>\n
sides.   On behalf of the respondent landlord, PW1, a Director of<\/p>\n
the   company   was   examined   and   Ext.A1   was   marked   and   on<\/p>\n
behalf   of   the   petitioner\/   tenant   RW1,   the   tenant   himself   and<\/p>\n
RW2, the Advocate Commissioner, who submitted Ext.C1 report<\/p>\n
were   examined.     EXts.B1   to   B7   series   were   also   marked   on<\/p>\n
behalf of the Revision Petitioner\/ tenant.<\/p>\n
5.    Considering   the   evidence   the   Rent   Control   Court   by   its<\/p>\n
order   dated   15th  June   2004   held   that   there   was   cessation   of<\/p>\n
occupation,   rendering   the   tenant   liable   for   eviction   under<\/p>\n
Section   11(4)(v)   of   the   Act   and   accordingly   the   tenant   was<\/p>\n
ordered to vacate the petition schedule premises within a period<\/p>\n
of   one  month.     The petitioner  filed  RCA   No.103   of  2004  before<\/p>\n
RCR 64\/2007<\/p>\n
                                        : 4 :<\/span><\/p>\n
the Rent Control Appellate Authority, which was also  dismissed<\/p>\n
by   judgment   dated   18.11.2006.     It   is   aggrieved   by   the<\/p>\n
concurrent   orders   of   eviction   passed   by   the   lower   authorities<\/p>\n
that this revision petition is filed under Section 20 of the Act.<\/p>\n
6.     On   behalf   of   the   Revision   Petitioner,   Sri.K.P.   Dandapani,<\/p>\n
Senior   Counsel   instructed   by   Sri.Varghese   Kuriakose   and   on<\/p>\n
behalf   of   the   respondent,   Sri.R.D.   Shenoy,   Senior   Counsel<\/p>\n
argued   the   case.     To   put   the   arguments   of   both   sides   in   a<\/p>\n
nutshell,   which   the   petitioner   contended   for   the   position   that<\/p>\n
there   has   not   been   any   cessation   of   occupation,   the   landlord<\/p>\n
contended for the position that the facts made out a case under<\/p>\n
Section   11(4)(v)   of   the   Act.     Both   sides   referred   to   us   the<\/p>\n
pleadings,   documents   and   the   oral   evidence   in   the   case   in<\/p>\n
support of their respective contentions.\n<\/p>\n
\n
7.     We have considered the submissions made by the learned<\/p>\n
Counsel on either side.\n<\/p>\n
\n
8.     Section   11(4)(v)   of   the   Act   provides   that   a   landlord   may<\/p>\n
apply to the Rent Control Court for an order directing the tenant<\/p>\n
to   put   the   landlord   in   possession   of   the   building,   if   the   tenant<\/p>\n
ceases to occupy the building continuously for 6 months without<\/p>\n
reasonable   cause.     This   Section   has   been   interpreted   as<\/p>\n
RCR 64\/2007<\/p>\n
                                      : 5 :<\/span><\/p>\n
requiring  the landlord  who  seeks  eviction  under  this  Section to<\/p>\n
establish  not only that the tenant was  not in occupation  of the<\/p>\n
building   without   reasonable   cause   continuously   for   6   months<\/p>\n
but also that he was not occupying the building on the date of<\/p>\n
petition.   Once it is so  proved by the landlord, then the burden<\/p>\n
would shift to the tenant to prove that he had reasonable cause<\/p>\n
for such non-occupation.  However, in this case, tenant contents<\/p>\n
that   he   has   been   in   occupation   of   the   building   and   therefore,<\/p>\n
that is the dispute to be examined.     It is essentially a question<\/p>\n
of   fact   depending   upon   the   appreciation   of   evidence   let   in   by<\/p>\n
both sides.\n<\/p>\n
\n
9.    Bearing the above legal position in mind, it is necessary for<\/p>\n
us to appreciate certain admitted facts.  It was in 1985 that the<\/p>\n
rental arrangement started for 5 years with the rent of Rs.1000\/-<\/p>\n
per month and there after, the rent was revised to Rs.1500\/- per<\/p>\n
month.     On   both   reasons,   the   agreement   between   the   parties<\/p>\n
did not specify any particular line of business to be carried on in<\/p>\n
the building.   As stated by the tenant, initially he was engaged<\/p>\n
in   the   business   of   readymade   garments,   then   in   ayurvedic<\/p>\n
medicines and thereafter in pharmaceutical business under the<\/p>\n
name and style of `Vinayaka   Medicals’.     It was while  so   that in<\/p>\n
RCR 64\/2007<\/p>\n
                                           : 6 :<\/span><\/p>\n
1997, electricity supply was disconnected by the landlord which<\/p>\n
made   the   tenant   move   the  Accommodation   Controller   by   filing<\/p>\n
ACP   No.3\/2000   and   ultimately   power   supply   was   restored   in<\/p>\n
August 2001.\n<\/p>\n
\n
10.    Meantime,   the   landlord   filed   O.S.No.1737   of   2000   before<\/p>\n
the   Additional   Munsiff’s   Court,   Ernakulam   seeking   a   decree   of<\/p>\n
injunction against the petitioner and his wife, in which, by order<\/p>\n
dated   22.12.2000   in   IA   No.8599   of   2000,   the   Court   passed   an<\/p>\n
order   of   injunction   restraining   the   respondents   therein   from<\/p>\n
subleasing   or   making   permanent   improvement   in   the   building.<\/p>\n
Against the order of injunction,  the petitioner and his  wife filed<\/p>\n
an   appeal   as   CMA   No.150\/2001,   which   was   dismissed   by   the<\/p>\n
VIth Additional District Judge, Ernakulam by his judgment dated<\/p>\n
6th June 2001, inter-alia observing as follows:<\/p>\n
         “There is no need to interfere with the order of the lower court.  But<\/p>\n
         at the same time I, make it clear that the lower court’s order will not<\/p>\n
         be a bar for the Appellants in making use of the building by doing<\/p>\n
         interior decorations in order to give a face-lift for profitable use.  For<\/p>\n
         correcting   the   leakage,   plastering   also   can   be   done   by   the<\/p>\n
         Appellants.   With this modifications, in the lower court order, the<\/p>\n
         appeal is dismissed.  No costs.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
<\/blockquote>\n
The counsel on either side also  admits that by judgment dated<\/p>\n
31.01.2004,   the   suit   has   been   decreed   as   prayed   for.     It   was<\/p>\n
much   after   the   judgment   of   the   District   Court,   as   admitted   by<\/p>\n
RCR 64\/2007<\/p>\n
                                        : 7 :<\/span><\/p>\n
the tenant  as  RW1,  that in  March\/ April  2003, he started using<\/p>\n
the building for storage of cassettes of Kalyani Audios, Diwan’s<\/p>\n
Road,   Cochin   and   that   while   so,   petition   was   filed   by   the<\/p>\n
respondent on 22.05.2003 seeking his eviction.<\/p>\n
11.      The   above   admitted   facts   disclose   that   since   1997,<\/p>\n
following the disconnection of power supply there was cessation<\/p>\n
of occupation of the building and the tenant has no case that he<\/p>\n
carried   on   any   business   in   the   building   during   this   period.<\/p>\n
Power supply was restored in August 2001 and even thereafter,<\/p>\n
the   tenant   did   not   occupy   the   building   and   he   seeks   to   justify<\/p>\n
his   alleged   inability   relying   on   the   order   of   injunction   that   was<\/p>\n
obtained  by  the  landlord   on  22.12.2000  in  I.A.No.8599   of  2000<\/p>\n
in O.S.No.1737 of 2000.  The fallacy of the argument is that the<\/p>\n
order continued only till 06.06.2001, when judgment was passed<\/p>\n
by the Additional District Court in CMA No.150 of 2001.  In view<\/p>\n
of   the   judgment   in   CMA   No.150\/2001,   though   there   was   no<\/p>\n
impediment   for  the   continued   occupation   of   the   building,   even<\/p>\n
according   to   the   Revision   Petitioner,   he   started   occupying   the<\/p>\n
building again only from March\/ April 2003, by storing cassettes<\/p>\n
of Kalyani Audios, Diwan’s Road, Cochin.\n<\/p>\n
\n
12.    We   are   not   impressed   by   the   argument   that   the   order<\/p>\n
RCR 64\/2007<\/p>\n
                                          : 8 :<\/span><\/p>\n
dated   22.12.2000,   passed   by   the   Additional   Munsiff’s   Court<\/p>\n
prevented the tenant from making use of the building and that<\/p>\n
contributed   to   his   inability   to   utilize   the   premises.     First   of   all,<\/p>\n
against the order of injunction passed by the Munsiff Court, the<\/p>\n
petitioner and his wife, had filed an appeal as CMA No.150\/2001<\/p>\n
which was dismissed by the Additional District Court, Ernakulam<\/p>\n
by   judgment   dated   06.06.2001,   which   we   have   already<\/p>\n
extracted hereinabove.     On reading the judgment, it is evident<\/p>\n
that   the   tenant   had   the   freedom   to   do   interior   decoration   to<\/p>\n
make profitable use of the building and therefore, if he wanted,<\/p>\n
he could have occupied the building.\n<\/p>\n
\n
13.    That apart, the suit itself was decreed ex parte as prayed<\/p>\n
for   on   31.01.2004,   which   means   that   the   contentions   of   the<\/p>\n
landlord   have   been   admitted   by   the   respondents   therein   and<\/p>\n
upheld  by   the  Civil  Court.   It  only  means,  that  the  landlord   was<\/p>\n
justified   in   moving   the   civil   court   and   obtaining   an   order   of<\/p>\n
injunction.     Even   if   such   an   order   had   the   effect   of   preventing<\/p>\n
the   tenant   from   continuing   his   activities,   in   view   of   the   final<\/p>\n
judgment   passed   by   the   Civil   Court,   we   have   to   conclude   that<\/p>\n
what the tenant was carrying on, was an unauthorized activity.<\/p>\n
Therefore,   the   order   passed   by   the   civil   court   cannot   be<\/p>\n
RCR 64\/2007<\/p>\n
                                       : 9 :<\/span><\/p>\n
projected   to   justify   the   default   of   the   tenant   in   occupying   the<\/p>\n
tenanted building.\n<\/p>\n
\n
14.     The admitted facts disclose, that there has been cessation<\/p>\n
of occupation as provided in Section 11(4)(v) of the Act.   Thus,<\/p>\n
the controversy narrows down to the disputed question, whether<\/p>\n
the tenant had in fact commenced occupation of the building in<\/p>\n
March\/   April   2003.     If   our   finding   on   this   issue   is   in   the<\/p>\n
affirmative, the necessary conclusion  is  that as  on  22.05.2003,<\/p>\n
when   the   Rent   Control   Petition   was   filed,   there   has   not   been<\/p>\n
cessation   of   occupation   by   the   tenant   and   if   that   be   so,   the<\/p>\n
petition   under   Section   11(4)(v)   of   the   Act   is   liable   to   be<\/p>\n
dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
\n
15.    Both   the   Rent   Control   Court   and   the   Appellate   Authority<\/p>\n
have,   on   evidence,   concurrently   found   that   there   has   been<\/p>\n
cessation of occupation and it is on that basis that eviction has<\/p>\n
been   ordered.     In   order   to   examine   the   correctness   of   this<\/p>\n
finding, we  have  to  refer  to  the  case  set  up by the tenant  and<\/p>\n
the evidence that was led by him in the proceedings.<\/p>\n
16.    RW2   is   the   Advocate   Commissioner,   who   had   visited   the<\/p>\n
petition   schedule   building   and   submitted   Ext.C1   report.     The<\/p>\n
Commissioner  deposed  that the  building appeared to be not in<\/p>\n
RCR 64\/2007<\/p>\n
                                      : 10 :<\/span><\/p>\n
use   for   a   long   period.     He   found   the   building   locked   with   a<\/p>\n
collapsible   shutter   and   a   glass   door   on   aluminium   fabrication<\/p>\n
behind   it.     Though,   he   could   only   see   the   inside   of   the   room<\/p>\n
through  the shutter  and  the glass,  all  that he  could notice was<\/p>\n
some old paper boxes, empty plastic bottle, damaged tubes etc.<\/p>\n
He also reported of having seen some wooden pieces, old sacks<\/p>\n
and plastic  cans  scattered  inside   the  room.     He  also   found  the<\/p>\n
name board `Vinayaka Medicals’ to be dusty and damaged and<\/p>\n
another   one   turned   upside   down.       Though,   the   witness   was<\/p>\n
cross examined, the Rent Control Court found that nothing could<\/p>\n
be  brought   out   to   discredit   his   version   or  the  report   submitted<\/p>\n
by   him.     The   only   point   that   was   raised   was   that   before<\/p>\n
inspecting   the   building   the   Commissioner   did   not   serve   notice<\/p>\n
on   the   Revision   Petitioner.                 The   explanation   of   the<\/p>\n
Commissioner was that he made an attempt to serve notice on<\/p>\n
the  petitioner   at his address in the petition schedule premises.<\/p>\n
This  explanation  was  acceptable  to the Rent Control  Court and<\/p>\n
taking   note   of   the   further   fact   that   the   Commissioner   was<\/p>\n
already examined in the case, the court found nothing vitiating<\/p>\n
the   report.       This   contention   was   reiterated   before   us   also   but<\/p>\n
we do not find any force in the submission.\n<\/p>\n
\nRCR 64\/2007<\/p>\n
                                      : 11 :<\/span><\/p>\n
17.    Among   the   documentary   evidence   that   was   relied   on   by<\/p>\n
the   tenant,   Ext.B6   series,   are   the   invoices   of   `Kalyani   Audios’.<\/p>\n
These invoice copies were produced, in an attempt to prove sale<\/p>\n
of   cassettes   to   various   customers   and   that   the   consignments<\/p>\n
were   delivered   from   the   petition   schedule   premises,   on   the<\/p>\n
strength   of   a   rubber   seal   affixed   on   the   invoices   stating   that<\/p>\n
“delivered   from   Vinayaka   Medicals,   Hotel   Dwaraka   Building,<\/p>\n
M.G.   Road,   Ernakulam.   The   Rent   Control   Court   found   the<\/p>\n
invoices   to   be   dubious   and   suspicious   and   the  reasons   thereof<\/p>\n
are   elaborated   in   the   order.     Although,   the   tenant   while<\/p>\n
deposing  as  RW1 asserted that he started  to use  the premises<\/p>\n
from   March\/   April   2003,   Ext.B6   series   were   of   the   period   from<\/p>\n
April   2002   to   January   2004.     That   apart,   the   story   regarding<\/p>\n
`Kalyani   Audios’   was   also   set   up   by   the   tenant   only   during   the<\/p>\n
course   of   the   evidence   and   was   conspicuously   absent   in   the<\/p>\n
statement   of   objection.     Even   the   sales   tax   registration   of<\/p>\n
`Kalyani   Audios’   was   not   produced   by   the   tenant   although   he<\/p>\n
had expressed his willingness to produce the same.<\/p>\n
18.   Ext.B6 series contained 13 invoices and for the period prior<\/p>\n
to   March\/   April   2003,   there   were   8   invoices   starting   from<\/p>\n
08.04.2002 to 16.02.2003 and this contradicts his own case that<\/p>\n
RCR 64\/2007<\/p>\n
                                      : 12 :<\/span><\/p>\n
business   commenced   only   during   March\/   April   2003.     After<\/p>\n
Ext.B6(g)   dated   16.02.2003,   the   next   one   Ext.B6(h)   is   dated<\/p>\n
20.05.2003,   followed   by   Ext.B6(i)   dated   06.08.2003.     The<\/p>\n
frequency   of   the   bills,   the   absence   of   anything   to   prove<\/p>\n
ownership of the alleged `Kalyani Audios’, the absence of sales<\/p>\n
tax   registration   in   the   invoices,   the   tenants   failure   to   produce<\/p>\n
the   same   and   lack   of   proper   pleadings   were   taken   note   of   by<\/p>\n
the   Rent   Control   Court   to   suspect   the   genuineness   of   Ext.B6<\/p>\n
series.     We   may   also   add   that   these   invoices   do   not   include<\/p>\n
even one  which  pertains  to  March\/  April  2003 when  the tenant<\/p>\n
claims   that   he   had   started   using   the   premises   for   storage   of<\/p>\n
cassettes.   The Rent Control Court found story unbelievable for<\/p>\n
the   further   reason   that   in  a   commercial   nerve   centre  like   M.G.<\/p>\n
Road,  Cochin,  the tenant  was  carrying  on  the business  without<\/p>\n
even displaying a board.\n<\/p>\n
\n
19.    The   other   piece   of   evidence   that   was   relied   on   by   the<\/p>\n
tenant was Ext.B5 series Electricity Bills.  The Rent Control Court<\/p>\n
referred to this and found that Ext.B5 bill was dated 21.10.2002<\/p>\n
in which the reading was noted 00085 and the consumption was<\/p>\n
Nil.  Ext.B5(a) bill dated 20.08.2003 also noted reading as 00085<\/p>\n
and  consumption   was   Nil.     Similar   is   the  case   which   Ext.B5(c),<\/p>\n
RCR 64\/2007<\/p>\n
                                      : 13 :<\/span><\/p>\n
bill   dated   17.04.2002   in   which   the   previous   reading  was   noted<\/p>\n
00085,   and   the   consumption   was   recorded   as   Nil.     Ext.R5(b)<\/p>\n
dated   21.06.2003   also   mentioned   reading   as   00085   and   the<\/p>\n
consumption   was   shown   as   Nil.     Despite   the   restoration   of<\/p>\n
power   supply   to   the   building   in   August   2001   and   the   claim   of<\/p>\n
the   tenant   that   he   has   been   carrying   on   business   from   the<\/p>\n
premises, during cross examination his explanation for the non-<\/p>\n
consumption   of   power   was   that   the   shop   was   functioning   only<\/p>\n
during   day   time   and   hence   it   was   not   necessary   to   consume<\/p>\n
electricity.   The Rent Control Court taking into account the fact<\/p>\n
that the invoices covered a period of almost 6 months, found it<\/p>\n
highly   improbable   and   unbelievable   that   the   tenant   was<\/p>\n
carrying any business in the premises, without consuming even<\/p>\n
a   single   unit   of   energy   during   the   aforesaid   period.     If   the<\/p>\n
explanation   of   the   tenant   is   to   be   accepted   one   wonders   why<\/p>\n
the   tenant   waited   till   March\/   April   2003   to   start   occupation   of<\/p>\n
the premises.\n<\/p>\n
\n
20.    The  Rent   Control   Court  referred   to   the   evidence   that   was<\/p>\n
tendered   by   the   tenant   and   found   it   to   be   inconsistent,<\/p>\n
contradictory   and   riddled   with   discrepancies.     Analyisng   the<\/p>\n
same   in   the   light   of   the   documentary   evidence,   the<\/p>\n
RCR 64\/2007<\/p>\n
                                     : 14 :<\/span><\/p>\n
Commissioner’s report and the evidence as Ext.RW2, in the light<\/p>\n
of the judgments of this Court, the Rent Control Court held that<\/p>\n
there   was   cessation   of   occupation   for   a   continuous   period   of<\/p>\n
more than 6 months and ordered eviction of the tenant.  Having<\/p>\n
considered the findings of the Rent Control Court, as affirmed by<\/p>\n
the   Appellate   Authority,   we   do   not   find   any   error   committed,<\/p>\n
warranting interference.\n<\/p>\n
\n
21.    The   Rent   Control   Court   also   dealt   with   the   contention   of<\/p>\n
the tenant that the signatory to the petition was not competent<\/p>\n
to represent the petitioner company.   The objection apparently<\/p>\n
was that the signatory was not proved to be the Director of the<\/p>\n
Company   and   that   in   the   petition   the   name   of   the<\/p>\n
representative was not mentioned in the cause title.   The court<\/p>\n
held   that   it   was   not   essential   that   the   representative   of   a<\/p>\n
company   should   appear   on   the   array   of   parties   to   the<\/p>\n
proceedings.     Thereafter,   referring   to   order   XXIX   Rule   1   of<\/p>\n
C.P.C., court held that when the suit is by a company it may be<\/p>\n
signed   by  a   Director.     The  court  also  found   that   there  was  no<\/p>\n
specific   contention   in   the   objection   in   the   pleadings   regarding<\/p>\n
the   incompetence   of   the   signatory   and   making   reference   to<\/p>\n
Exts.B1, B3 and B4, the court found that the tenant himself had<\/p>\n
RCR 64\/2007<\/p>\n
                                    : 15 :<\/span><\/p>\n
accepted   the   signatory,   who   was   examined   as   PW1,   as   a<\/p>\n
Director of  the company   in   those  proceedings  and  that  he had<\/p>\n
no case that PW1 had ceased to be a Director thereafter.  In the<\/p>\n
circumstances, the Rent Control Court held the contention to be<\/p>\n
false,   vexatious   and   frivolous.     PW1,   admittedly   being   a<\/p>\n
Director, has the competence to represent the company.   Since<\/p>\n
the petitioner had no case that PW1 had ceased to be a director<\/p>\n
of the company, we do not find any merit in this contention as<\/p>\n
well.\n<\/p>\n
\n
22.    In   RCA   No.103   of   2004   filed   by   the   tenant,   also   the<\/p>\n
contentions   urged   before   the   Rent   Control   Court   were<\/p>\n
reiterated.   The capacity of PW1 to represent the company has<\/p>\n
been   examined   and   finding   that   he   was   a   Director   of   the<\/p>\n
Company, the Appellate Court held that he had the competence<\/p>\n
to represent the respondent company.  The Appellate Court has<\/p>\n
taken note of the previous proceedings to which the tenant is a<\/p>\n
party,  where  the capacity   of  PW1 was  accepted  by  the  tenant.<\/p>\n
Thereafter,   the   Appellate   Authority   proceeded   to   examine   the<\/p>\n
ground under Section 11(4)(v) of the Act and re-appreciated the<\/p>\n
entire   evidence   and     upheld   the   findings   of   the   Rent   Control<\/p>\n
Court.\n<\/p>\n
\nRCR 64\/2007<\/p>\n
                                      : 16 :<\/span><\/p>\n
23.    As we have already noted, the fate of the petition turns on<\/p>\n
the question whether, on the evidence available,  it was proved<\/p>\n
that   the   tenant   had   commenced   the   business   of   storing<\/p>\n
cassettes   in   the   building   as   claimed   by   him   from   March\/   April<\/p>\n
2003.       On   the   evidence   that   is   available,   including   the   oral<\/p>\n
evidence,   it   was   concurrently   held   that   it   was   not   proved   that<\/p>\n
the   tenant   had   used   the   premises   for   business   purposes   and<\/p>\n
that   there   was   cessation   of   occupation,   rendering   the   tenant<\/p>\n
liable for an order of eviction under Section 11(4)(v) of the Act.<\/p>\n
Having anxiously considered the whole case, we see no error in<\/p>\n
the   findings   of   the   Rent   Control   Court   as   affirmed   by   the<\/p>\n
Appellate Authority and we fully endorse the findings entered by<\/p>\n
the lower authorities.\n<\/p>\n
\n
       We   do   not   find   any   merit   in   this   Revision   Petition   and<\/p>\n
accordingly   the   Revision   Petition   will   stand   dismissed   without<\/p>\n
any order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n
\n
                                                     P.R.RAMAN, JUDGE.\n<\/p>\n
\n
                                                ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE.\n<\/p>\n
Rp<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court K.Krishna Kumar vs M\/S.Vrindavan Hotel (P) Ltd on 4 April, 2007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM RCRev No. 64 of 2007() 1. K.KRISHNA KUMAR, … Petitioner Vs 1. M\/S.VRINDAVAN HOTEL (P) LTD., … Respondent For Petitioner :SRI.VARGHESE C.KURIAKOSE For Respondent :SRI.P.K.RAVISANKAR The Hon’ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMAN The Hon’ble MR. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-269213","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nK.Krishna Kumar vs M\/S.Vrindavan Hotel (P) Ltd on 4 April, 2007 - 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\/k-krishna-kumar-vs-ms-vrindavan-hotel-p-ltd-on-4-april-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"K.Krishna Kumar vs M\/S.Vrindavan Hotel (P) Ltd on 4 April, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-krishna-kumar-vs-ms-vrindavan-hotel-p-ltd-on-4-april-2007\" \/>\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=\"2007-04-03T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-01-10T18:20:20+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\\\/k-krishna-kumar-vs-ms-vrindavan-hotel-p-ltd-on-4-april-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-krishna-kumar-vs-ms-vrindavan-hotel-p-ltd-on-4-april-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"K.Krishna Kumar vs M\\\/S.Vrindavan Hotel (P) Ltd on 4 April, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-04-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-01-10T18:20:20+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-krishna-kumar-vs-ms-vrindavan-hotel-p-ltd-on-4-april-2007\"},\"wordCount\":3280,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Kerala High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-krishna-kumar-vs-ms-vrindavan-hotel-p-ltd-on-4-april-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-krishna-kumar-vs-ms-vrindavan-hotel-p-ltd-on-4-april-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-krishna-kumar-vs-ms-vrindavan-hotel-p-ltd-on-4-april-2007\",\"name\":\"K.Krishna Kumar vs M\\\/S.Vrindavan Hotel (P) Ltd on 4 April, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-04-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-01-10T18:20:20+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-krishna-kumar-vs-ms-vrindavan-hotel-p-ltd-on-4-april-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-krishna-kumar-vs-ms-vrindavan-hotel-p-ltd-on-4-april-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-krishna-kumar-vs-ms-vrindavan-hotel-p-ltd-on-4-april-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"K.Krishna Kumar vs M\\\/S.Vrindavan Hotel (P) Ltd on 4 April, 2007\"}]},{\"@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":"K.Krishna Kumar vs M\/S.Vrindavan Hotel (P) Ltd on 4 April, 2007 - 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\/k-krishna-kumar-vs-ms-vrindavan-hotel-p-ltd-on-4-april-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"K.Krishna Kumar vs M\/S.Vrindavan Hotel (P) Ltd on 4 April, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-krishna-kumar-vs-ms-vrindavan-hotel-p-ltd-on-4-april-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-04-03T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-01-10T18:20:20+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\/k-krishna-kumar-vs-ms-vrindavan-hotel-p-ltd-on-4-april-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-krishna-kumar-vs-ms-vrindavan-hotel-p-ltd-on-4-april-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"K.Krishna Kumar vs M\/S.Vrindavan Hotel (P) Ltd on 4 April, 2007","datePublished":"2007-04-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-01-10T18:20:20+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-krishna-kumar-vs-ms-vrindavan-hotel-p-ltd-on-4-april-2007"},"wordCount":3280,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Kerala High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-krishna-kumar-vs-ms-vrindavan-hotel-p-ltd-on-4-april-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-krishna-kumar-vs-ms-vrindavan-hotel-p-ltd-on-4-april-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-krishna-kumar-vs-ms-vrindavan-hotel-p-ltd-on-4-april-2007","name":"K.Krishna Kumar vs M\/S.Vrindavan Hotel (P) Ltd on 4 April, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-04-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-01-10T18:20:20+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-krishna-kumar-vs-ms-vrindavan-hotel-p-ltd-on-4-april-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-krishna-kumar-vs-ms-vrindavan-hotel-p-ltd-on-4-april-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-krishna-kumar-vs-ms-vrindavan-hotel-p-ltd-on-4-april-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"K.Krishna Kumar vs M\/S.Vrindavan Hotel (P) Ltd on 4 April, 2007"}]},{"@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\/269213","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=269213"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/269213\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=269213"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=269213"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=269213"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}