{"id":33277,"date":"1974-08-14T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1974-08-13T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/isha-valimohamad-anr-vs-haji-gulam-mohamad-haji-dada-on-14-august-1974"},"modified":"2015-01-18T23:09:12","modified_gmt":"2015-01-18T17:39:12","slug":"isha-valimohamad-anr-vs-haji-gulam-mohamad-haji-dada-on-14-august-1974","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/isha-valimohamad-anr-vs-haji-gulam-mohamad-haji-dada-on-14-august-1974","title":{"rendered":"Isha Valimohamad & Anr vs Haji Gulam Mohamad & Haji Dada … on 14 August, 1974"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Isha Valimohamad & Anr vs Haji Gulam Mohamad & Haji Dada … on 14 August, 1974<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1974 AIR 2061, \t\t 1975 SCR (1) 720<\/div>\n
Author: K K Mathew<\/div>\n
Bench: Mathew, Kuttyil Kurien<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nISHA VALIMOHAMAD & ANR.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nHAJI GULAM MOHAMAD & HAJI DADA TRUST\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT14\/08\/1974\n\nBENCH:\nMATHEW, KUTTYIL KURIEN\nBENCH:\nMATHEW, KUTTYIL KURIEN\nRAY, A.N. (CJ)\n\nCITATION:\n 1974 AIR 2061\t\t  1975 SCR  (1) 720\n 1974 SCC  (2) 484\n CITATOR INFO :\n O\t    1979 SC1745\t (16)\n R\t    1987 SC1217\t (13)\n RF\t    1991 SC2156\t (10)\n\n\nACT:\nSaurashtra  Rent  Control Act 1951- Whether  termination  of\ntenancy\t under\tTransfer of Property  Act  necessary  before\nfiling\t a   suit   for\t  eviction   on\t  the\tgrounds\t  of\nsubletting--Repeal  and\t saving\t clause-Meaning\t of   right,\nprivilege acquired, accrued or- incurred.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nThe  respondents let out the premises to the  appellants  in\nthe  year  1951 in a place governed by the  Saurashtra\tRent\nControl Act, 1951 which prohibited a tenant from  subletting\nthe   premises.\t  The  appellant  sublet  the  premises\t  in\nviolation  of the Saurashtra Act at a time  when  Saurashtra\nAct was in force.  In 1963, the Saurashtra Act was  repealed\nand  the Bombay Rent Act was made applicable to the area  in\nquestion.   Under  the Bombay Act there\t is  no\t prohibition\nagainst\t subletting  by the tenant unless  the\tcontract  of\ntenancy\t prohibited  it.   The\trespondent  terminated\t the\ntenancy\t of  the  appellant after  the\tSaurashtra  Act\t was\nrepealed  and, thereafter, a suit was filed for recovery  of\npossession  on\tthe ground of subletting.  The\tHigh  'Court\nheld that the suit to recover possession was competent under\nSaurashtra  Act\t after its repeal as the respondent  had  an\naccrued right within the meaning of section 51 of the Bombay\nRent Act.  The High Court assumed that the notice under\t the\nTransfer  of  Property act was necessary  to  terminate\t the\ntenancy.\nHELD  : (1) The High Court was not right in  its  assumption\nthat  the  notice  under the Transfer of  Property  Act\t was\nnecessary  to terminate the tenancy on the ground  that\t the\nappellants  had sublet the premises.  Under the Transfer  of\nProperty  Act  a  mere subletting by  a\t tenant\t unless\t the\ncontract of tenancy so provides is no ground for terminating\nthe tenancy.  The respondent could not have issued a  notice\nunder the Transfer of Property Act to determine the  tenancy\nas  the contract of tenancy did not prohibit  subletting  by\nthe tenant.  The Saurashtra Act unconditionally prohibited a\ntenant\tfrom subletting and it was under that Act  that\t the\nlandlord was entitled to recover possession of the  premises\non  the\t basis that the tenant had sublet the  premises.   A\nright  accrued to the landlord to recover  possession  under\nthe  Saurashtra Act when the tenant sublet the premises\t and\nthe  right survived the repeal of that Act under section  51\nof the Bombay Rent Act.\t Therefore, the suit for recovery of\npossession of the premises was maintainable after the repeal\nof the Saurashtra Act. [726-727D]\n(2) The right of a landlord to recover possession is not  an\naccrued\t right it before the issue of a notice if under\t any\nlaw  it was necessary for the landlord to issue tile  notice\nto  determine  the  tenancy.  Privilege\t and  inability\t are\ncorrelatives.\tWhere  there is a privilege  there  must  be\ninability.  Privilege is a' legal freedom on the part of one\nperson\tas  against  another to do a given act\tor  a  legal\nfreedom not to do a ,certain act. [724B,-725H; 726A-B]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : CIVIL Appeal No. 1915 of 1970
\n(Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment & Order dated the
\n2nd\/3rd\t March, 1970 of the Gujarat High Court\tin  Revision
\nAppln.\tNo. 371 of 1966.)
\nV.N. Ganpule and Urmila Sirur for the appellants.
\nD. V. Patel, KL.  Hathi, A.R. Chaphekar and P.C. Kapur,\t for
\nrespondent No. 1.\n<\/p>\n
721<\/span><\/p>\n
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\nMATHEW,\t J. In this appeal, by special leave,  the  question
\nfor  consideration  is whether the High Court was  right  in
\ndismissing  a revision petition filed by the appellants\t and
\nthereby\t upholding  the\t judgment of  the  learned  District
\nJudge, Jamnagar, decreeing the suit filed by respondent\t No.
\n1 for possession of the suit premises.\n<\/p>\n
The suit premises consisted of a building known as Abdul Rat
\nman  Manzil and it belonged to one Haji Mohamad,  Haji\tDada
\nWakf  (Trust).\tThe building was leased to Osman  Jamal\t and
\nCompany\t under\ta rent note dated January 15, 1947.   In  or
\nabout the year 1951, the firm of Osman Jamal and Company was
\nwound  up and the appellants took the premises on rent on  a
\nmonthly\t rent of Rs. 320\/-.  The respondent,  the  landlord,
\npurported  to  terminate  this tenancy by  a.  notice  dated
\nFebruary  12,  1964  on\t the  ground  that  the\t  appellants
\n(tenants) had defaulted in the payment of rent and had\tsub-
\nlet  the premises.  At the trial of the suit, the plea\tthat
\nthe  appellants\t committed default in payment  of  rent\t was
\ngiven up and, therefore, the sole issue before the Court was
\nwhether\t the  appellants  had  sub-let\tthe  premises.\t The
\ncontention of the appellants was that under the contract  of
\nlease,\tthey  had  the right to sub-let\t the  promises\tand,
\nthere-fore,  the  respondent  was not  entitled\t to  recover
\npossession of the premises.\n<\/p>\n
The trial court held that the contract of tenancy  contained
\nno  prohibition against the tenant sub-letting the  premises
\nand   so,  the\trespondent  was\t not  entitled\tto   recover
\npossession   of\t the  premises\tfor  the  reason  that\t the
\nappellants had sub-let the premises and dismissed the suit.
\nThe  respondent. filed an appeal against this decree  before
\nthe  District Judge.  He held that s. 15 of  the  Saurashtra
\nRent  Control  Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred\tto  as\t“the
\nSaurashtra Act”) which prohibited a tenant from\t Sub-letting
\nthe premises superseded the contract of tenancy between\t the
\nparties\t as that section was not subject to any contract  to
\nthe contrary and, therefore, the landlord obtained the right
\nto  recover  possession\t of the premises  by  virtue  of  s.
\n13(1)(e)  of the Saurashtra Act.  He further held  that\t the
\nrepeal of the Saurashtra Act by the Bombay Rents, Hotel\t and
\nLodging\t  House\t Rates\t(Control)  Act,\t 1947\t(hereinafter
\nreferred  to as “The Bombay Act”) on December 31, 1963,\t did
\nnot affect the rights, privileges, obligations or  liability
\nacquired,  accrued  or incurred under the former  Act  and,.
\ntherefore,  the\t liability of the  appellants  to  ejectment
\nunder  s.  13(1)(e) of the Saurashtra Act on the  ground  of
\nsub-letting could be enforced by a suit, notwithstanding the
\nrepeal of that Act.  The District Judge, therefore,  allowed
\nthe appeal and decreed the suit.\n<\/p>\n
Against\t this  judgment,  the appellants  filed\t a  revision
\nbefore the High Court of Gujarat.  When the application\t for
\nrevision  came up for hearing before a learned single  judge
\nof the High Court, he referred it to a Division Bench.\t The
\nquestion before the )Division Bench was :\n<\/p>\n
\t      “Whether the landlord is entitled to  maintain
\n\t      a\t suit  for recovery of possession  from\t the
\n\t      tenant.  On the ground
\n722<\/span>
\n\t      of  sub-letting under section 13(1)(e) of\t the
\n\t      Bombay  Rent Act (No. 57 of 1947), as  applied
\n\t      to  Gujarat State on 31 December 1963),  where
\n\t      the  sub-letting was made during the  pendency
\n\t      of the Saurashtra Rent Control Act and neither
\n\t      the notice to terminate the contract was given
\n\t      nor  the\tsuit was filed before  the  date  on
\n\t      which  the  Saurashtra Rent  Control  Act\t was
\n\t      repealed ?”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The  Division Bench, by its judgment, held that the suit  to
\nrecover\t possession of the premises was competent  under  s.
\n13(1)(e)  of the ‘Saurashtra Act notwithstanding the  repeal
\nof  that Act as the respondent had an accrued  right  within
\nthe  meaning  of s. 51, proviso (2) of the  Bombay  Act\t and
\nconfirmed  the\tdecree\tfor  ejectment.\t  It  is  from\tthis
\njudgment that the present appeal has been filed.
\nAs  already  stated,  the Saurashtra  Act  was\trepealed  on
\nDecember 31, 1963; the Bombay Act was made applicable to the
\narea in question on January 1, 1964.  The appellants sub-let
\nthe  premises while the ‘Saurashtra Act was in force in\t the
\narea.\t That\tAct   by  s.   15   prohibited\t sub-letting
\nnotwithstanding\t anything  contained in\t any  law.   Section
\n13(1)(e) of the Saurashtra Act provided :\n<\/p>\n
\t      “13.  When landlord may recover possession-
\n\t      (1)Notwithstanding anything contained in\tthis
\n\t      Act,  a landlord shall be entitled to  recover
\n\t      possession  of  any premises if the  Court  is
\n\t\t\t    satisfied-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      *\t  *    *    *\t *    *\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (e) that the tenant has, since the coming into
\n\t      operation\t of this Act, sub-let the whole.  or
\n\t      part   of\t  the  premises\t  or   assigned\t  or
\n\t      transferred  in any other manner his  interest
\n\t      therein.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Therefore,  there can be no doubt that the respondent  could
\nhave  filed a suit to recover possession under S.  13(1)  of
\nthe  Saurashtra\t Act on the ground that the  appellants\t had
\nsub-let\t the premises while that Act was in force.  But\t the
\nappellants  submitted that since no notice ,terminating\t the
\ntenancy\t was given before the repeal of the Saurashtra\tAct,
\nthe  respondent-landlord  had no accrued  right\t to  recover
\npossession  which could survive the repeal and therefore  he
\nwas not entitled .to file the suit after the repeal of\tthat
\nAct,  as under the corresponding ,provisions of\t the  Bombay
\nAct, the suit was not maintainable.\n<\/p>\n
\t      Section 13(1)(e) of the Bombay Act provides :
\n\t      “13.   When landlord may recover\tPossession.-
\n\t      (I) Notwithstanding anything contained in this
\n\t      Act but subject to the provisions of s. 15,  a
\n\t      landlord\tshall  be entitled to  recover\tpos-
\n\t      session  of  any\tpremises  if  the  Court  is
\n\t      satisfied-\n<\/p>\n
\t      *\t  *    *     *\t   *\t*\n<\/p>\n
\t      (e) that the tenant has, since the coming into
\n\t      operation\t of this Act unlawfully sub-let\t the
\n\t      whole  or part of the premises or assigned  or
\n\t      transferred  in any other manner his  interest
\n\t      therein.”\n<\/p>\n
It  may\t be  noted that under the Bombay Act,  there  is  no
\nprohibition   against  sub-letting  by\ttenant\tunless\t the
\ncontract of tenancy prohibited it.  That idea is conveyed by
\nthe words “unlawfully subject” in
\n723<\/span>
\nthe sub-section.  That apart, the section can obviously have
\nno application as the subletting was before the coming\tinto
\noperation of that Act.\n<\/p>\n
The  notice  to\t terminate the tenancy\twas  issued  by\t the
\nlandlord on February 12, 1964 i.e., after the Saurashtra Act
\nwas  repealed  and  the\t suit  was  filed  for\trecovery  of
\npossession  of the premises after the Bombay Act  came\tinto
\nforce.\tAs already stated, the Division Bench took the\tview
\nthat the landlord had an accrued right within the meaning of
\nproviso\t (2)  to s. 51 of the Bombay Act, and  therefore,  a
\nsuit could be instituted for recovery of possession under s.
\n13(1)(e)  of the Saurashtra Act.  Section 51 of\t the  Bombay
\nAct, so far as it is material, provides :\n<\/p>\n
\t      “51.  Repeal of Sau.  Act XXII of 1951 and  of
\n\t      Bombay LVII of 1947 as extended to Kutch\tArea
\n\t      and saying.-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      The  Saurashtra Rent Control Act,\t 1951  (San.
\n\t      Act XXII of 1951) and the Bombay Rents,  Hotel
\n\t      and  Lodging  House Rates\t Control  Act,\t1947
\n\t      (Bom.  LVII of 1947) as extended to the  Kutch
\n\t      area of the State of Gujarat by the Government
\n\t      of India, Ministry of States, Notification No.
\n\t      215-J.  dated  the  10th\tSeptember  1951\t are
\n\t      hereby repealed
\n\t      Provided that
\n\t      *\t   *\t *     *     *\t   *\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (ii)  affect any right, privilege,  obligation
\n\t      or  liability  acquired, accrued\tor  incurred
\n\t      under any law so repealed;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (2)  any such investigation, legal  proceeding
\n\t      or  remedy  may be  continued,  instituted  or
\n\t      enforced and any such penalty, forfeiture\t and
\n\t      punishment,   may\t be  imposed,  as   if\t the
\n\t      aforesaid law had not been repealed.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
As   already  stated,  the  submission\ton  behalf  of\t the
\nappellants  was that before the issue of notice\t terminating
\nthe tenancy, the landlord had no accrued right to  institute
\na  suit for recovery of possession as the issue of a  notice
\ndetermining  the tenancy on the ground of subletting  was  a
\nsine qua non for filing a suit under s. 13(1)(e) of the Sau-
\nrashtra Act.  In other words, the argument was that the sub-
\nletting\t by the tenant when the Saurashtra Act was in  force
\nonly gave the landlord a right to terminate the tenancy\t and
\nthat until the tenancy was terminated by a notice under\t the
\nTransfer  of Property Act, it cannot be said that any  right
\naccrued\t to  the  landlord  to\trecover\t possession  of\t the
\npremises  which would survive the repeal of  the  Saurashtra
\nAct.\n<\/p>\n
if a notice under the provisions of the Transfer of Property
\nAct was necessary to determine the tenancy on the ground  of
\nsub-letting,  we do not think that the High Court was  right
\nin its view that a right accrued to the landlord to  recover
\npossession  of\tthe  premises  under  s.  13(i)(e)  of\t the
\nSaurashtra  Act\t merely\t because  the  tenant  sub-let\t the
\npremises  and that was prohibited by s. 15 of that Act.\t  In
\nother  words,  if the assumption of the High  Court  that  a
\nnotice terminating
\n724<\/span>
\nthe  tenancy on the ground of sub-letting was necessary\t for
\nfiling\ta suit under s. 13(1)(e) of the Saurashtra  Act\t was
\ncorrect,  then we do not think that the\t respondent-landlord
\nhad an accrued right which would survive the repeal of\tthat
\nAct  unless  the notice was issued determining\tthe  tenancy
\nduring\tthe currency of that Act.  We do not think that\t the
\nright of a landlord to recover possession on the ground that
\nthe  tenant  has sub-let the premises is  an  accrued  right
\nbefore\tthe  issue  of a notice, if under  any\tlaw  it\t was
\nnecessary for the landlord to issue the notice to  determine
\nthe tenancy on the ground of sub-letting.
\nIn  Hamilton  Coll v. While (1) Atkin L. J.  said  that\t the
\nprovision of   s.  38(f)(c)  of the  English  Interpretation
\nAct, corresponding to s. 51, proviso (2), of the Bombay Act,
\nwas  not intended to preserve abstract fights  conferred  by
\nthe  repealed Act and that it applies only to  the  specific
\nrights\tgiven to an individual upon the happening of one  or
\nmore  events  specified in the statute.\t The Court  held  in
\nthat case that a tenant’s general right to compensation\t for
\ndisturbance would not survive the repeal of the Agricultural
\nHoldings  Act,\t1908.\tBut, where a  landlord,\t before\t the
\nrepeal, had given his tenant notice to\tquit, the tenant had
\n‘acquired a  right’ which would ‘accrue’ when he quitted his
\nholding-the  right  to\treceive\t compensation.\t In   Abbott
\nv.Minister of Lands (2) where the appellant claimed that. as
\na purchaser of Crown  land  in New South Wales\tin  1871  he
\nbecame entitled under the Crown Lands Alienation Act 1861 to
\nmake further purchases of Crown land adjoining his  original
\nholding.   The Act of 1861 was repealed by the\tCrown  Lands
\nAct, 1884 which, however, provided that notwithstanding\t the
\nrepeal\t‘all  rights  accrued’ by  virtue  of  the  repealed
\nenactment should remain unaffected.  The Judicial  Committee
\nheld  that  the\t mere  right existing at  the  date  of\t the
\nrepealing statute to take advantage of the provisions of the
\nAct repealed was not a ‘right accrued’ within the meaning of
\nthe  saying  clause.  In Director of Public Works v.  Ho  Po
\nSang  (3),  the\t Privy\tCouncil\t has  had  to  consider\t the
\nquestion.   It was held that the fact that the\tDirector  of
\nPublic\tWorks  had  given  a  Crown  lessee  notice  of\t his
\nintention  to  grant a rebuilding certificate,\twhich  would
\nenable\tthe  lessee to recover vacant  possession  from\t the
\npersons\t in occupation of the premises, did not\t confer\t any
\nright  to  the\tcertificate on\tthe  lessee,  since  various
\nconditions   had  remained  to\tbe  fulfilled\tbefore\t the
\ncertificate could be granted, so that the lessee had no more
\nthan a hope that it would be granted.  Lord Morris of Borth-
\ny-Gest said :\n<\/p>\n
\t      “It   may\t be,  therefore,  that\tunder\tsome
\n\t      repealed enactment a right has been given\t but
\n\t      that  in respect of it some  investigation  or
\n\t      legal  proceeding is necessary.  The right  is
\n\t      then  unaffected\tand preserved.\tIt  will  be
\n\t      preserved even if a process of  quantification
\n\t      is   necessary.\tBut  there  is\ta   manifest
\n\t      distinction   between  an\t  investigation\t  in
\n\t      respect of a right and an investigation  which
\n\t      is  to  decide whether some  right  should  or
\n\t      should not be given.  Upon a repeal the former
\n\t      is  preserved by the Interpretation  Act,\t The
\n\t      latter is not.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
(2) [1895] A.C. 425.\n<\/p>\n
(1) [1922] 2 K.B. 422.\n<\/p>\n
(3) [1961] A.C. 9011
\n725<\/span>
\nIn  Free  Lanka Insurance Co. Ltd. v.  Ranasinghe  (1)\tLord
\nEvershed  said\tthat the distinction between what  was,\t and
\nwhat was not, a right must often be one of great finance and
\nthe  Court held that a claim given by the Ceylon  Motor\t Car
\nOrdinance  of  1936 to an injured person against  the  other
\nparty  involved\t in an accident was “something more  than  a
\nmere  hope or expectation….he had in truth a\tright….al-
\nthough\tthat  right  might  fairly  be\tcalled\tinchoate  or
\ncontingent”.\n<\/p>\n
We do not, however, think that the right of the landlord  to
\nterminate the tenancy by giving a notice on the ground\tthat
\nthe  tenant  has sub-let the premises was an  accrued  right
\nwithin the meaning of s. 51  of the Bombay Act\twhich  would
\nsurvive the repeal of the Saurashtra\tAct.
\nMr. Patel for respondent contended that even if the landlord
\nhad  no\t accrued  right, he at least had  a  ‘privilege’  as
\nvisualised  in s. 51, proviso (1)(ii) of the Bombay Act\t and
\nthat the privilege should survive the repeal.\n<\/p>\n
\t      “A  privilegium,\tin short, is a\tspecial\t act
\n\t      affecting\t special persons with  an  anomalous
\n\t      advantage,  or with an anomalous burthen.\t  It
\n\t      is derived from privatum, which, as opposed to
\n\t      publicum,\t signified  anything  which  regards
\n\t      persons\tconsidered  individually;   publicum
\n\t      being  anything  which  regards  persons\tcon-
\n\t      sidered collectively, and forming a society”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
(See Austin’s Jurisprudence, Vol. II, 5th ed. (1911) P. 519)
\nThe  meaning  of that word in  jurisprudence  has  undergone
\nconsiderable  change  after  Austin  wrote.   According\t  to
\nHohfeld :\n<\/p>\n
\t      “….a  privilege is the opposite of  a  duty,
\n\t      and  the\tcorrelative of a  ‘no-right”‘.\t For
\n\t      instance,\t where “X has a right or claim\tthat
\n\t      Y\t ….  should stay off the land (of  X),  he
\n\t      himself  has the I privilege’ of\tentering  on
\n\t      the land; or, in equivalent words,  X does not
\n\t      have a duty to stay off.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Fundamental Legal Conceptions, (1923) pp. 38-39)
\nArthur L. Corbin writes
\n\t      “We  know that those results would not  occur.
\n\t      In such case we say that B had no right that A
\n\t      should  stay out and that A had the  privilege
\n\t      of entering.”\n<\/p>\n
\t      (See “Legal Analysis and Terminology”, 29 Yale
\n\t      Law Journal 163)
\nAccording to Kocourek
\n\t      “Privilege  and  inability  are  correlatives.
\n\t      Where  there  is\ta privilege  there  must  be
\n\t      inability.  The term-, are correlatives.\t The
\n\t      dominus of a Privilege may prevent the  servus
\n\t      of the Inability from exacting an act from the
\n\t      dominus”\n<\/p>\n
\t      (See “Jural Relations”, 2nd ed., P. 24)
\n(1) [1964] A.C. 541.\n<\/p>\n
726<\/span><\/p>\n
Paton says :\n<\/p>\n
\t      “The  Restatement\t of  the  law  of   Property
\n\t      defines a privilege as a legal freedom on\t the
\n\t      part of one person as against another to do  a
\n\t      given  act  or  a legal freedom not  to  do  a
\n\t      certain act”.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
(See Jurisdiction, 3rd ed.(1964), p.256)
\nWe think that the respondent-landlord had the legal  freedom
\nas  against the appellants to terminate the tenancy or\tnot.
\nThe  appellants\t had no right or claim that  the  respondent
\nshould\tnot  terminate the tenancy and the  respondent\thad,
\ntherefore,  the privilege of terminanating it on the  ground
\nthat  appellants had sub-let the premises.   This  privilege
\nwould  survive the repeal.  But the problem would still\t re-
\nmain  whether  the  respondent\thad  an\t accrued  right\t  or
\nprivilege  to  recover possession of the premises  under  S.
\n13(1) of the Saurashtra Act on the ground of the sub-letting
\nbefore the repeal of that Act.\tThe fact that the  privilege
\nto  terminate  the  tenancy on\tthe  ground  of\t sub-letting
\nsurvived  the repeal does not mean that the landlord had  an
\naccrued\t right\t privilege to recover  possession  under  s.
\n13(1)  of  that Act as that right or privilege\tcould  arise
\nonly  if the tenancy had been validly terminated before\t the
\nrepeal of the Saurashtra Act.\n<\/p>\n
Be  that as it may, we do not, however, think that the\tHigh
\nCourt  was right in its assumption that a notice  under\t the
\nTransfer  of  Property Act was necessary  to  terminate\t the
\ntenancy\t on the ground that the appellant s had sub-let\t the
\npremises;  or, for that matter, the landlord  could  legally
\nhave  terminated the tenancy by giving a notice, unless\t the
\ncontract  of tenancy prohibited the tenant  from  subletting
\nthe premises.\n<\/p>\n
Under  the Transfer of Property Act, mere sub-letting, by  a
\ntenant,\t unless the contract of tenancy so provides,  is  no
\nground\tfor  terminating  the tenancy.\t Under\tthat  Act  a
\nlandlord  cannot terminate a tenancy on the ground that\t the
\ntenant\thad  sub-let  the premises unless  the\tcontract  of
\ntenancy prohibits him from doing so.  The respondentlandlord
\ntherefore  could not have issued a notice under any  of\t the
\nprovisions of the Transfer of Property Act to determine\t the
\ntenancy,  as the contract of tenancy did not  prohibit\tsub-
\nletting\t by  the tenant.  To put it, differently  under\t the
\nTransfer  of  Property Act, it is only if  the\tcontract  of
\ntenancy prohibits sub-letting by tenant that a landlord\t can
\nforfeit\t the tenancy on the ground that the tenant has\tsub-
\nlet  the promises and recover possession of the\t same  after
\nissuing\t a notice.  Section III of the Transfer of  Property
\nAct  provides that a lease- may be determined by  forfeiture
\nif the tenant commits breach of any of the conditions of the
\ncontract  of  tenancy  which entails  a\t forfeiture  of\t the
\ntenancy.   If  sub-letting  is\tnot  prohibited\t under\t the
\ncontract  of tenancy, sub-letting would not be a  breach  of
\nany condition in the contract of tenancy which would  enable
\nthe landlord to forfeit the tenancy on that score by issuing
\na  notice.   If\t that be so, there was no  question  of\t the
\nrespondent  landlord  terminating  the\ttenancy\t under\t the
\nTransfer  of Property Act on the ground that the tenant\t had
\nsub-let\t the premises.\tIt is only under s. 13(1)(e) of\t the
\nSaurashtra
\n727<\/span>
\nAct  that a landlord was entitled to recover  possession  of
\nthe  property on the basis that the tenant had\tsub-let\t the
\npremises;   and,  that\tis  because,  s.  15  of  that\t Act
\nunconditionally\t prohibited a tenant from sub-letting.\t The
\nSaurashtra  Act\t nowhere insists that  the  landlord  should
\nissue a notice and terminate the tenancy before\t instituting
\na  suit for recovery of possession under s. 13(1)(e) on\t the
\nground\tthat  the  tenant had  sub-lot\tthe  premises.\t The
\nposition,  therefore, was that the landlord was entitled  to
\nrecover\t possession  of the promises under s. 13(1)  of\t the
\nSaurashtra  Act\t on the ground that the tenant\tsub-let\t the
\npremises.   It\twould  follow that a right  accrued  to\t the
\nlandlord  to  recover  possession  under  s.  13(1)  of\t the
\nSaurashtra  Act when the tenant sub-let the premises  during
\nthe  currency of that Act and the right survived the  repeal
\nof  that  Act under proviso (2) to s. 51 of the\t Bombay\t Act
\nand,  therefore, the suit for recovery of possession of\t the
\npremises  under\t s. 13(1) read with clause (e) of  the\tSau-
\nrashtra Act after the repeal of that Act on the basis of the
\nsub-letting  during the currency of the Saurashtra  Act\t was
\nmaintainable.\tIn this view, we think that the judgment  of
\nthe High Court must be up held and we do so.\n<\/p>\n
The appeal is dismissed, but we make no order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\tAppeal dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
P.H.P.\n<\/p>\n
728<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Isha Valimohamad & Anr vs Haji Gulam Mohamad & Haji Dada … on 14 August, 1974 Equivalent citations: 1974 AIR 2061, 1975 SCR (1) 720 Author: K K Mathew Bench: Mathew, Kuttyil Kurien PETITIONER: ISHA VALIMOHAMAD & ANR. Vs. RESPONDENT: HAJI GULAM MOHAMAD & HAJI DADA TRUST DATE OF JUDGMENT14\/08\/1974 BENCH: […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-33277","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nIsha Valimohamad & Anr vs Haji Gulam Mohamad & Haji Dada ... on 14 August, 1974 - 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\/isha-valimohamad-anr-vs-haji-gulam-mohamad-haji-dada-on-14-august-1974\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Isha Valimohamad & Anr vs Haji Gulam Mohamad & Haji Dada ... on 14 August, 1974 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/isha-valimohamad-anr-vs-haji-gulam-mohamad-haji-dada-on-14-august-1974\" \/>\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=\"1974-08-13T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-01-18T17:39:12+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\\\/isha-valimohamad-anr-vs-haji-gulam-mohamad-haji-dada-on-14-august-1974#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/isha-valimohamad-anr-vs-haji-gulam-mohamad-haji-dada-on-14-august-1974\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Isha Valimohamad & Anr vs Haji Gulam Mohamad & Haji Dada … on 14 August, 1974\",\"datePublished\":\"1974-08-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-01-18T17:39:12+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/isha-valimohamad-anr-vs-haji-gulam-mohamad-haji-dada-on-14-august-1974\"},\"wordCount\":3246,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/isha-valimohamad-anr-vs-haji-gulam-mohamad-haji-dada-on-14-august-1974#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/isha-valimohamad-anr-vs-haji-gulam-mohamad-haji-dada-on-14-august-1974\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/isha-valimohamad-anr-vs-haji-gulam-mohamad-haji-dada-on-14-august-1974\",\"name\":\"Isha Valimohamad & Anr vs Haji Gulam Mohamad & Haji Dada ... on 14 August, 1974 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1974-08-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-01-18T17:39:12+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/isha-valimohamad-anr-vs-haji-gulam-mohamad-haji-dada-on-14-august-1974#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/isha-valimohamad-anr-vs-haji-gulam-mohamad-haji-dada-on-14-august-1974\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/isha-valimohamad-anr-vs-haji-gulam-mohamad-haji-dada-on-14-august-1974#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Isha Valimohamad & Anr vs Haji Gulam Mohamad & Haji Dada … on 14 August, 1974\"}]},{\"@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":"Isha Valimohamad & Anr vs Haji Gulam Mohamad & Haji Dada ... on 14 August, 1974 - 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\/isha-valimohamad-anr-vs-haji-gulam-mohamad-haji-dada-on-14-august-1974","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Isha Valimohamad & Anr vs Haji Gulam Mohamad & Haji Dada ... on 14 August, 1974 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/isha-valimohamad-anr-vs-haji-gulam-mohamad-haji-dada-on-14-august-1974","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1974-08-13T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-01-18T17:39:12+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\/isha-valimohamad-anr-vs-haji-gulam-mohamad-haji-dada-on-14-august-1974#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/isha-valimohamad-anr-vs-haji-gulam-mohamad-haji-dada-on-14-august-1974"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Isha Valimohamad & Anr vs Haji Gulam Mohamad & Haji Dada … on 14 August, 1974","datePublished":"1974-08-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-01-18T17:39:12+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/isha-valimohamad-anr-vs-haji-gulam-mohamad-haji-dada-on-14-august-1974"},"wordCount":3246,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/isha-valimohamad-anr-vs-haji-gulam-mohamad-haji-dada-on-14-august-1974#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/isha-valimohamad-anr-vs-haji-gulam-mohamad-haji-dada-on-14-august-1974","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/isha-valimohamad-anr-vs-haji-gulam-mohamad-haji-dada-on-14-august-1974","name":"Isha Valimohamad & Anr vs Haji Gulam Mohamad & Haji Dada ... on 14 August, 1974 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1974-08-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-01-18T17:39:12+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/isha-valimohamad-anr-vs-haji-gulam-mohamad-haji-dada-on-14-august-1974#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/isha-valimohamad-anr-vs-haji-gulam-mohamad-haji-dada-on-14-august-1974"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/isha-valimohamad-anr-vs-haji-gulam-mohamad-haji-dada-on-14-august-1974#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Isha Valimohamad & Anr vs Haji Gulam Mohamad & Haji Dada … on 14 August, 1974"}]},{"@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\/33277","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=33277"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/33277\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=33277"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=33277"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=33277"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}