{"id":32153,"date":"2010-08-27T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-08-26T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-regional-manager-vs-v-natarajan-on-27-august-2010"},"modified":"2014-12-02T19:00:20","modified_gmt":"2014-12-02T13:30:20","slug":"the-regional-manager-vs-v-natarajan-on-27-august-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-regional-manager-vs-v-natarajan-on-27-august-2010","title":{"rendered":"The Regional Manager vs V.Natarajan on 27 August, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
The Regional Manager vs V.Natarajan on 27 August, 2010<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED: 27\/08\/2010\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.S.RAMANATHAN\n\nC.R.P.(NPD)MD.No.410 of 2005\nand\nC.M.P.No.1589 of 2005\n\n\n1.The Regional Manager,\n  Tamil Nadu Handloom Weavers\n  Cooperative Society Ltd.,\n  Thanjavur.\n\n2.The Managing Director,\n  Tamil Nadu Handloom Weavers\n  Cooperative Society Ltd.,\n  Pantheon Road,\n  Egmore,\n  Chennai.\n\n3.The Manager,\n  Tamil Nadu Handloom Weavers\n  Cooperative Society Ltd.,\n  Kumbakonam.                 ... Revision Petitioners\/\n                                  Appellants\/Tenants\n\nvs.\n\n\nV.Natarajan                  ... Respondent\/Respondent\/\n                                 Landlord\n\nThis  civil revision petition has been filed under section 25 of the Tamil Nadu\nBuildings (Lease & Rent Control)Act 18 of 1960 as amended by Tamil Nadu Act 23\nof 1973 and Act 1 of 1980, to set aside the fair and decretal order passed in\nRCA No.7 of 2001, dated 04.03.2004, on the file of the Rent Control Appellate\nAuthority (Principal Sub Court), Kumbakonam, confirming the fair and decretal\norder passed in RCOP No.10 of 1997, dated 19.09.2001, on the file of the Rent\nController  (Principal District Munsif Court), Kumbakonam.\n\n!For Petitioners  ... Mr.K.Srinivasan\n^For Respondent   ... Mr.T.R.Subramanian\n\n:ORDER\n<\/pre>\n
\tHeard both sides.\n<\/p>\n
\t2.The unsuccessful tenants are the revision petitioners herein.\n<\/p>\n
\t3.The respondent\/landlord filed RCOP 10 of 1997, on the file of the
\nPrincipal Rent Controller, Kumbakonam, for eviction of the revision petitioners
\non the ground of owner’s occupation under section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Tamil
\nNadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act.\n<\/p>\n
\t4.The case of the respondent was that he is the owner of the building,
\nwhich is in the occupation of the revision petitioners and he was doing business
\nof brass- ware with his father and his brother and he has got good experience in
\nthat business and after the death of his father on 08.12.1996, he wanted to
\nstart his own business separately and for that purpose, he required the premises
\nin the occupation of the tenants\/revision petitioners and in the upstairs
\nportion, one room is available and that can be used for other purpose and in the
\nunderground floor, which is in the tenants occupation, he can have his business
\nof brass-ware and the place where the premises is situate is in a crowed
\nlocality and therefore, he required the premises for his own occupation and he
\ndoes not own any other premises in Kumbakonam town and after the issuance of
\nnotice, the tenants\/revision petitioners refused to vacate the tenanted premises
\nand hence, he filed eviction petition.\n<\/p>\n
\t5.The revision petitioners filed a counter stating that requirement of the
\nlandlord is not bona fide and the tenants have renovated the building at the
\ncost of Rs.2,17,000\/- and also provided air conditioning and electric fittings
\nat the cost of Rs.40,250\/- and the tenants would be put to serious hardship if
\nthe tenants are asked to vacate and the tenants are the Cooperative Stores and
\nthe respondent\/landlord is having some other buildings in the same town and he
\nhas not done any preparation for doing business nor he is doing any business and
\nhence, there is bona fide on the part of the tenant.\n<\/p>\n
\t6.The learned Rent Controller, on the basis of the evidence both oral and
\ndocumentary, accepted the case of the landlord and held that the requirement of
\nthe landlord is bona fide and the landlord is entitled to an order for eviction
\nand passed an order of eviction. Aggrieved by the same, the revision
\npetitioners\/tenants filed RCA No.7 of 2001, on the file of the Rent Control
\nAppellate Authority, Kumbakonam and the learned Rent Control Appellate
\nAuthority, also concurred with the finding of the learned Rent Controller and
\nheld that the landlord is not having any other buildings, except the premises in
\nthe occupation of the tenants and the requirement of the landlord is also bona
\nfide.  Aggrieved by the same, this civil revision petition is filed.\n<\/p>\n
\t7.Mr.K.Srinivasan, the learned counsel appearing for the revision
\npetitioners, submitted that the essential ingredients of section 10(3)(a)(iii)
\nare not satisfied by the landlord and admittedly, the landlord is having
\npossession of one room in the upstairs of the building in the occupation of the
\ntenants and therefore, he is not entitled to file application under section
\n10(3)(a)(iii) and the landlord is also doing business in partnership with his
\nbrother and owned other properties in the town and admittedly, the landlord has
\nnot taken any steps to commence business and he is not doing business and
\ntherefore, the requirement of the landlord is not bona fide.\n<\/p>\n
\t8.The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners relied upon
\nthe judgments reported in 1994-1-L.W. 24, in the case of S.Devaji vs.
\nK.Sudarshana Rao,<\/a> 2004(1) CTC 94, in the case of Bata India Limited, Rep. by its
\nManager vs. M.R.Manickam  and<\/a> 1995(1)MLJ 59 SC in the case of Super Forgining
\nand Steels (Sales) Private Limited vs. Thyabally Rasuljee<\/a> (dead) through L.R.s
\nin support of his contention.\n<\/p>\n
\t9.Mr.T.R.Subramanian, the learned counsel appearing for the
\nrespondent\/landlord, submitted that both the Courts below concurrently held that
\nthe requirement of the landlord is bona fide and the landlord is not owning any
\nother property in the same town and no evidence was let in by the revision
\npetitioners to the effect that the landlord is owning any other property and is
\nin own occupation of that property and doing business in that property.  He
\nfurther submitted that admittedly, the landlord\/respondent was doing business in
\npartnership with his father and that was proved by various exhibits, Exs.P10 to
\nP16 and till the life time of his father, he was doing business with his father
\nand his brother and after death of his father, he wanted to start his business
\nindividually and the business does not require any preparation and considering
\nthe experience of the respondent\/landlord, the bona fide of the landlord cannot
\nbe doubted.\n<\/p>\n
\t10.I have given my anxious consideration to the submission made by the
\ncounsels.\n<\/p>\n
\t11.As per section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act, the following ingredients are
\nnecessary to maintain the petition for eviction:-\n<\/p>\n
\ta.building should be non-residential in character.\n<\/p>\n
\tb.landlord should be carrying on business on date of application for
\neviction.\n<\/p>\n
\tc.landlord should not be occupying any building belonging to him.\n<\/p>\n
\td.claim should be bona fide and not found to be indirect or false attempt
\nto evict tenant to obtain more rent or to harass tenant.\n<\/p>\n
Therefore, we will have to see whether the landlord has proved the above
\ningredients to sustain the order of eviction.\n<\/p>\n
\t12.The contention of the learned counsel appearing for the revision
\npetitioners is that the landlord is admittedly, having possession of the
\nupstairs portion and hence, he cannot file application under section
\n10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act and he can only file application under section 10(3)(c)
\nand in that case relative hardship has to be pleaded and proved and in this
\ncase, admittedly, it was not pleaded and no evidence was let in to the same
\neffect and hence, the petition is not maintainable under section 10(3)(a)(iii)
\nof the Act.\n<\/p>\n
\t13.It is admitted that the respondent is the owner of the building and in
\nthe upstairs portion, he got possession, but it is not a case of the revision
\npetitioners that the respondent\/landlord has occupied that portion.  As per
\nsection 10(3)(a)(iii) only in case the landlord or any member of his family is
\nnot occupying for his business a non residential building, he is entitled to
\nevict the tenant from other premises. The fact that the landlord is having
\npossession cannot be equated with occupation.\n<\/p>\n
\t14.In this case, it is not disputed by the revision petitioners that the
\nlandlord\/respondent has occupied the upstairs portion and it is admitted by the
\ntenants that the landlord has not occupied the upstairs portion, but he is
\nhaving the possession of the same. According to me, the possession of the
\npremises cannot be equated to occupation and as per section 10(3(a)(iii),
\noccupation is the main criteria and not the possession.\n<\/p>\n
\t15.Further, it is stated by the landlord that he is going to have the
\noffice in the upstairs portion and business in the ground-floor where the
\ntenants are occupying and hence, it cannot be stated that the landlord is not
\nentitled to maintain the petition under section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act.
\nFurther, considering that the tenant is occupying the ground floor and the
\nlandlord is having possession of one room in the upstairs, in my opinion, both
\nthe portions form one building and as the landlord is not occupying the room, he
\nis entitled to file petition under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
\t16.Further, as per section 10(3)(c), only in the case of landlord
\noccupying a part of the building and requiring the remaining part of the
\nbuilding, he has to apply under section 10(3)of the Act.  As stated supra, that
\nquestion does not arise as the landlord has not occupied the upstairs portion
\nthough he has got possession of the same.  Hence, section 10(3)(c) will not be
\napplicable to the facts of this case.\n<\/p>\n
\t17.Admittedly, the building is a non-residential building.  Therefore, the
\nfirst ingredient stated above is satisfied.\n<\/p>\n
\t18.It is not in dispute that the respondent was doing brass-ware business
\nalong with his father and brother and therefore, he has got good experience in
\nthat business. Though, it has been stated that the landlord should be carrying
\non business on the date of application, this Court has interpreted the same and
\nheld that to satisfy the 2nd requirement, the business need not be carried on,
\nbefore filing of the eviction petition and the lower Court relied upon the
\njudgment reported in (1983)96 LW 128 at page 130 [Tamil Nadu Wakf Board, rep by
\nits Secretary K.T.Fakir Ahmed vs. S.Syed Inam Saheb and another] and (1985)98 LW
\n666 [Thiru Chelliah Pandithan vs. Tmt.Anthoniammal and<\/a> two others]. Hence, from
\nthe above judgments, it is made clear that it is not necessary for the landlord
\nto carry on business for filing eviction application under section 10(3)(a)(iii)
\nand it is sufficient if he has the bona fide intention to start the business.\n<\/p>\n
\t19.Regarding the 3rd criteria, it has been stated supra that the
\npossession of upstairs portion cannot be equated to occupation and no proof has
\nbeen adduced by the tenants that the landlord is occupying any other building of
\nhis own.\n<\/p>\n
\t20.Regarding 4th criteria, as stated above, both the Courts below
\nconcurrently held that the claim of the landlord is bona fide and a perusal of
\nthe evidence would also make it clear that the requirement of the landlord is
\nbona fide and it was not an attempt to evict the tenants.  Hence, the four
\nessential ingredients, as per section 10(3(a)(iii) are satisfied by the landlord
\nand the landlord is entitled to order of eviction.\n<\/p>\n
\t21.In the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel appearing for the
\nrevision petitioners reported in 1995(1) MLJ 59 (SC) in the case of Super
\nForgings and Steels (Sales) Private Limited vs. Thyabally Rasuljee<\/a> (dead)through
\nL.Rs., in case of co-owner, one co-owner is also recognised as a landlord and if
\nhe owns any other building, as a co-owner, he is dis-entitled to claim the
\npremises from the tenant.\n<\/p>\n
\t22.As stated supra, in this case, it is not proved by the tenants that the
\nlandlord is owning any other property in that town, either on his own or as a
\nco-owner.  In the judgment reported in 1994(1) LW 24, SC, in the case of
\nS.Devaji vs. K.Sudarshana Rao, the<\/a> essential ingredients have been stated and
\nthe facts of that case and the facts in the present case are different and that
\njudgment cannot be made applicable to this case.\n<\/p>\n
\t23.In the judgment reported in 2004(1) CTC 94 in the case of Bata India
\nLimited, rep. by its Manager vs. M.R.Manickam,<\/a> this Court has held that when a
\nlandlord is a owner of a building and the partnership business, in which one of
\nthe partners is doing business in that premises, he is not entitled to ask for
\neviction of the premises from the tenants.  In this case, it is not the
\ncontention of the tenants that the landlord is owning some other property and in
\nthat property, the partnership business in which the revision petitioner was a
\npartner doing business.  Therefore, the above contentions relied upon by the
\nlearned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners are not applicable to the
\nfacts of this case.\n<\/p>\n
\t24.As stated supra, considering the facts that the petition was filed
\nunder section 10(3)(a)(iii), there is no need to plead about the relative
\nhardship. Nevertheless, the Courts below have considered the same and gave a
\nfinding.  Hence, it cannot be contended by the tenants that the tenants would be
\nput to hardship if they were asked to vacate the tenanted premises.\n<\/p>\n
\t25.As rightly, held by the Courts below that every tenant will be put to
\ninconvenience when he is asked to vacate the demised premises, but that will not
\ndeprive the landlord’s bona fide requirement of the premises for his own
\noccupation.\n<\/p>\n
\t26.Considering, all these facts, I do not find any reason to interfere
\nwith the order of the Courts below and hence, the civil revision petition is
\ndismissed. The revision petitioners\/tenants are the Cooperative institutions and
\nconsidering the same, 12(twelve)months’ time is granted for vacating and handing
\nover the possession of the tenanted premises on condition of filing an
\nundertaking affidavit to the same effect before the learned Rent Controller.
\nConsequently, connected C.M.P. is closed. No costs.\n<\/p>\n
er<\/p>\n
To,<\/p>\n
1.The Principal District Munsif,
\n  Kumbakonam.\n<\/p>\n
2.The Principal Sub Judge,
\n  Kumbakonam.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court The Regional Manager vs V.Natarajan on 27 August, 2010 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 27\/08\/2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.S.RAMANATHAN C.R.P.(NPD)MD.No.410 of 2005 and C.M.P.No.1589 of 2005 1.The Regional Manager, Tamil Nadu Handloom Weavers Cooperative Society Ltd., Thanjavur. 2.The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Handloom Weavers Cooperative Society Ltd., […]<\/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":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-32153","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nThe Regional Manager vs V.Natarajan on 27 August, 2010 - 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\/the-regional-manager-vs-v-natarajan-on-27-august-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"The Regional Manager vs V.Natarajan on 27 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-regional-manager-vs-v-natarajan-on-27-august-2010\" \/>\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=\"2010-08-26T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-12-02T13:30:20+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=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-regional-manager-vs-v-natarajan-on-27-august-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-regional-manager-vs-v-natarajan-on-27-august-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"The Regional Manager vs V.Natarajan on 27 August, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-08-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-12-02T13:30:20+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-regional-manager-vs-v-natarajan-on-27-august-2010\"},\"wordCount\":2109,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madras High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-regional-manager-vs-v-natarajan-on-27-august-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-regional-manager-vs-v-natarajan-on-27-august-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-regional-manager-vs-v-natarajan-on-27-august-2010\",\"name\":\"The Regional Manager vs V.Natarajan on 27 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-08-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-12-02T13:30:20+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-regional-manager-vs-v-natarajan-on-27-august-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-regional-manager-vs-v-natarajan-on-27-august-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-regional-manager-vs-v-natarajan-on-27-august-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"The Regional Manager vs V.Natarajan on 27 August, 2010\"}]},{\"@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":"The Regional Manager vs V.Natarajan on 27 August, 2010 - 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\/the-regional-manager-vs-v-natarajan-on-27-august-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The Regional Manager vs V.Natarajan on 27 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-regional-manager-vs-v-natarajan-on-27-august-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-08-26T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-12-02T13:30:20+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":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-regional-manager-vs-v-natarajan-on-27-august-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-regional-manager-vs-v-natarajan-on-27-august-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"The Regional Manager vs V.Natarajan on 27 August, 2010","datePublished":"2010-08-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-12-02T13:30:20+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-regional-manager-vs-v-natarajan-on-27-august-2010"},"wordCount":2109,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madras High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-regional-manager-vs-v-natarajan-on-27-august-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-regional-manager-vs-v-natarajan-on-27-august-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-regional-manager-vs-v-natarajan-on-27-august-2010","name":"The Regional Manager vs V.Natarajan on 27 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-08-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-12-02T13:30:20+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-regional-manager-vs-v-natarajan-on-27-august-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-regional-manager-vs-v-natarajan-on-27-august-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-regional-manager-vs-v-natarajan-on-27-august-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"The Regional Manager vs V.Natarajan on 27 August, 2010"}]},{"@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\/32153","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=32153"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/32153\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=32153"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=32153"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=32153"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}