{"id":39359,"date":"1966-09-22T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1966-09-21T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manujendra-dutt-vs-purendu-prosad-roy-chowdhury-ors-on-22-september-1966"},"modified":"2019-03-09T15:30:32","modified_gmt":"2019-03-09T10:00:32","slug":"manujendra-dutt-vs-purendu-prosad-roy-chowdhury-ors-on-22-september-1966","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manujendra-dutt-vs-purendu-prosad-roy-chowdhury-ors-on-22-september-1966","title":{"rendered":"Manujendra Dutt vs Purendu Prosad Roy Chowdhury & Ors on 22 September, 1966"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Manujendra Dutt vs Purendu Prosad Roy Chowdhury & Ors on 22 September, 1966<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1967 AIR 1419, \t\t 1967 SCR (1) 475<\/div>\n
Author: Shelat<\/div>\n
Bench: Shelat, J.M.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nMANUJENDRA DUTT\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nPURENDU PROSAD ROY CHOWDHURY & ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n22\/09\/1966\n\nBENCH:\nSHELAT, J.M.\nBENCH:\nSHELAT, J.M.\nRAO, K. SUBBA (CJ)\n\nCITATION:\n 1967 AIR 1419\t\t  1967 SCR  (1) 475\n CITATOR INFO :\n RF\t    1972 SC 819\t (11)\n HO\t    1974 SC 818\t (15,19,26,30)\n D\t    1976 SC 588\t (8)\n E&D\t    1978 SC1518\t (9,10,11,17)\n O\t    1979 SC1745\t (14,16)\n RF\t    1980 SC1214\t (12)\n\n\nACT:\nCalcutta Thika Tenancy Act, 1949, ss. 3 and 29-S. 3  whether\nover-rides  provision in lease agreement requiring  landlord\nto  give  six months' notice to tenant\tfor  termination  of\nlease-Suit for eviction of tenants transferred to Controller\nof  Thika Tenancy under s. 29-Section repealed\tby  Amending\nAct 6 of 1953-Controller's jurisdiction to try suit  whether\ncontinues.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nThe  appellant was the tenant of the respondents on a  piece\nof  land.   According to the lease agreement the  period  of\nlease was fixed at ten years but the lessee was entitled  to\nrenew the lease after that period under certain\t conditions.\nThe  lease  agreement further provided that  if\t the  lessor\nrequired  the lessee to vacate the premises whether  at\t the\ntime  of the expiry of the lease or thereafter (in case\t the\nlessee exercised his option to renew the lease), six months'\nnotice\tto the lessee was necessary.  The  lessee  exercised\nhis option to continue the lease and offered to fulfill\t the\nconditions  therefor.  The Court of Wards on behalf  of\t the\nrespondents,  sought  to impose further conditions  for\t the\nrenewal\t of  the lease which the appellant did\tnot  accept.\nThe  Court of Wards thereupon filed a suit in the  Court  of\nthe First Subordinate Judge, Alipore for the eviction of the\nappellant  on the ground that he was a trespasser.   In\t the\nmeanwhile the Calcutta Thika Tenancy Act, 1949 was passed by\nthe  West Bengal Legislature.  As Provided in s. 29  of\t the\nAct  the  suit\twas transferred\t to  the  Thika\t Controller.\nThereafter Amendment Act 6 of 1963 was passed which  deleted\ns. 29 and the appellant urged before the Controller that  he\nno  longer  had jurisdiction to try the matter.\t  This\tcon-\ntention\t was  rejected\tand on\tthe  merits  the  Controller\ndecided\t against the appellant holding that in view of s.  3\nof  the\t Act the six months' notice required  by  the  lease\nagreement  for\tthe  eviction  of  the\tappellant  was\t not\nnecessary.    The  High\t Court\talso  decided  against\t the\nappellant who thereupon came to this Court with certificate.\nHELD : (i) Though s. 29 was deleted by the Amendment Act  of\n1953  the deletion could not affect pending proceedings\t and\nwould not deprive the Controller of his jurisdiction to\t try\nsuch  proceedings  pending before him at the date  when\t the\nAmendment Act came into force.\tThough the Amendment Act did\nnot  contain  any saving clause, under s. 8  of\t the  Bengal\nGeneral\t Clauses Act, 1899 the transfer of the\tsuit  having\nbeen lawfully made under s. 29 of the Act its deletion would\nnot  have the effect of altering the law applicable  to\t the\nclaim  in the litigation.  There is nothing in s. 8  of\t the\nAmending  Act,\t1953 suggesting a  different  intention\t and\ntherefore  the\tdeletion  would\t not  affect  the   previous\noperation of s. 5 of the Calcutta Thika Tenancy Act, or\t the\ntransfer of the uit to the Controller or anything duly\tdone\nunder  s.  29.\t That  being the  correct  position  in\t law\nthe'High  Court\t was right in holding that in spite  of\t the\ndeletion of s. 29 the Controller still had the\tjurisdiction\nto proceed with the said suit transferred to him. [479 G]\n(ii)  The Thika Tenancy Act does not confer  any  additional\nrights\ton  a landlord but on the contrary  imposes  certain\nrestrictions on his right o evict a tenant under the general\nlaw or under the contract of lease.\n476\nThe Thika Act like other Rent Acts enacted in various States\nimposes\t certain  further restrictions on the right  of\t the\nlandlord  to evict his tenant and lays down that the  status\nof irremovability of a tenant cannot be got rid of except on\nspecified  grounds  set out in s. 3. The right\tof  the\t ap-\npellant\t therefore to have a notice as provided for  by\t the\nproviso to cl. 7 of the lease was not in any manner affected\nby  s. 3 of the Thika Act.  The effect of  the\tnon-obstante\nclause\twas that even where a landlord had  duly  terminated\nthe  contractual tenancy or is otherwise entitled  to  evict\nhis  tenant  he\t would\tstill be entitled  to  a  decree  of\neviction  provided his claim for possession falls under\t any\none  or\t more of the grounds in s. 3. Before  therefore\t the\nrespondents  could  be said to be entitled to a\t decree\t for\neviction  they\thad  first to give  six\t months'  notice  as\nrequired  by  the proviso to cl. 7 of the  lease  and  such-\nnotice\tnot  having  been admittedly given  their  suit\t for\neviction could not succeed. [482 G]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 586 of 1964.
\nAppeal\tfrom the judgment and order dated April 1,  1960  of
\nthe Calcutta High Court in Civil Revision No. 2612 of 1957.
\nC. B. Agarwala, and Sukumar Ghosh, for the appellant.
\nSarjoo Prasad and D. N. Mukherjee, for the respondent.
\nThe Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\nShelat, J. Two questions arise in this appeal by certificate
\ngranted\t by the High Court at Calcutta, (1) as\tregards\t the
\njurisdiction  of  the Controller -under the  Calcutta  Thika
\nTenancy Act, 1949 after the deletion therefrom of section 29
\nby  Amendment  Act  VI of 1953\tin  respect  of\t proceedings
\npending before him on that date and (2) the right of a Thika
\nTenant as defined by the Act to a notice provided under\t the
\nDeed of Lease.\n<\/p>\n
By a registered lease dated December 4, 1934, the  appellant
\nentered into possession of the land demised thereunder\tfrom
\nthe  Bhowanipore  Wards Estate which was then  managing\t the
\nsaid property at a monthly, rent of Rs. 47-0-3P.  The  lease
\nwas for a fixed term of 10 years and it inter alia gave\t the
\ntenant\toption\tof  renewal of the said\t lease\tprovided  he
\noffered the maximum rent which might be offered by intending
\ntenants on expiry of the said term.  Clause 7 of the Deed of
\nLease  provided\t that  the  lessee shall  be  bound  on\t the
\ntermination or sooner determination of the lease to  restore
\nto   the  lessors  the\tland  demised  after  removing\t the
\nstructures with drains, privies water taps etc., leaving the
\nland  in the same state as it was at the date of the  lease.
\nIt also provided that the lessee would be bound to sell\t the
\nsaid structures, privies, drains etc. to the lessors if\t the
\nlessors so desired at a valuation to be fixed by a qualified
\nEngineer  specified  therein.\tClause 7  then\tprovided  as
\nfollows:-\n<\/p>\n
\t      “Provided\t always and it is hereby agreed\t and
\n\t      declared\tthat  if  it be\t required  that\t the
\n\t      lessee should vacate the said
\n477<\/span>
\n\t      premises\tat  the end of the said term  of  10
\n\t      years  the  lessee  will be served  with\ta  6
\n\t      months  notice ending with the expiry  of\t the
\n\t      said term and it is further agreed that if the
\n\t      lessee  is  permitted to hold  over  the\tland
\n\t      after the expiry of the said term of 10  years
\n\t      the lessee will be allowed a six months notice
\n\t      to quit and vacate the said premises.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
It  is\tclear that the lessee was entitled to a\t six  months
\nnotice\tin  the\t following two events  before  he  could  be
\nrequired to vacate: (1) If the lessors desired the lessee to
\nvacate\tat the end of ten years and not to renew the  lease,
\nthey  were bound to give six months notice ending  with\t the
\nexpiry\tof the term of 10 years and (2) if on the expiry  of
\nthe  term  the\tlease was not renewed  but  the\t lessee\t was
\nallowed to hold over the lessors were bound to give him\t six
\nmonths’\t notice\t before\t being asked  to  quit.\t  After\t the
\nexecution  of  the said lease the  appellant  built  certain
\nstructures on some portion of the said land and let out\t the
\nremaining portion as permitted under the said lease.   Since
\nthe  said period of ten years was to expire on\tDecember  1,
\n1944 the ,appellant by his letter dated November 30, 1944 to
\nthe  Bhawanipore  Wards\t Estate\t expressed  his\t desire\t  to
\nexercise his option of renewal stating therein that he\t‘Was
\nprepared to pay such higher rent as the lessors had by\tthat
\ntime received.\tAccording to the appellant, since he did not
\nreceive\t any reply to the said offer he continued to  be  in
\npossession  of\tthe  demised land and as  was  the  practice
\nbetween the parties, continued to deposit the aforesaid rent
\nfrom  time to time in the treasury of Alipore  collectorate.
\nOn May 26, 1945 the Manager of the Wards Estate intimated to
\nthe  appellant\tthat the renewal of the said lease  was\t not
\nsanctioned  and asked the appellant if he was  agreeable  to
\npay rent at the rate of Rs. 12\/- per month per Cottah and  a
\nSelami\tequivalent to one year’s rent.\tThe appellant  wrote
\nback  to say that he had already exercised his option,\tthat
\nhe had been regularly depositing the said rent and that\t the
\nsaid demand was excessive and he was therefore not bound  to
\npay the same.  Considerable correspondence thereafter ensued
\nbetween the parties ending with the notice dated October 14,
\n1946 by the said Wards Estate stating that as the  appellant
\ndid  not agree to pay the rent as demanded by them  and\t the
\nsaid  lease was not renewed he was a trespasser and was\t not
\nentitled to any notice under the said lease and required him
\nto deliver vacant possession of the said land after removing
\nthe structures within two weeks from the date of the receipt
\nof  the\t notice.   On  July 11,\t 1947  the  Court  of  Wards
\ninstituted  a  suit in the First Court\tof  the\t Subordinate
\nJudge  at Alipore for ejectment and for mesne  profits.\t  In
\nhis  written statement the appellant maintained that he\t had
\nlawfully exercised his option of renewal, that after receipt
\nof his said letter the Wards Estate had continued to  accept
\nthe rent as agreed under the said lease, that the demand  of
\nRs. 12\/- per cottah was not a bona fide one and that the
\n478<\/span>
\nsaid  notice  was illegal.  While the suit was\tpending\t the
\nCalcutta  Thika\t Tenancy Act, 1949 was enacted\tand  brought
\ninto force.  On both the parties agreeing that the appellant
\nwas  a\tThika  Tenant as defined by the said  Act  and\tthat
\ntherefore the suit would be governed by that.  Act the Court
\ntransferred  it\t to the Thika Controller under s.29  of\t the
\nAct.  The suit thus stood transferred to the Fourth Court of
\nthe  Munsiff at Alipore who was the Thika  Controller  under
\nthe  Act.  While the suit was still pending the West  Bengal
\nlegislature  passed the said Amendment Act VI of 1953  which
\ncame  into  force on April 21, 1953 by section\t8  of  which
\nsections  28 and 29 of the Act were deleted.   On  September
\n12,  1953,  the appellant filed an  application\t before\t the
\nThika Controller that as a result of the deletion of section
\n29  he\tlost jurisdiction over the said suit.\tThat  appli-
\ncation was however rejected and the suit continued to be  on
\nthe  file  of  the Controller.\tOn  January  24,  1954,\t the
\nrespondents  applied for amendment of the plaint  contending
\nthat  they  were entitled to a decree for ejectment  on\t the
\ngrounds (a) the at the appellant had failed to use or occupy
\nhimself\t a major portion of the said land (b) that the\tsaid
\nland was required by the landlords for constructing a build-
\ning  on and developing the said land and (c) that  the\tsaid
\nlease  had expired by efflux of time, thus seeking to  bring
\ntheir suit within the grounds (iv), (v) and (vi) in  section
\n3  of the Act.\tThe aforesaid amendment was allowed and\t the
\nsuit  was  proceeded  with  on the cause  of  action  as  so
\namended.  By a supplementary written statement the appellant
\ndenied\tthe  aforesaid allegations.  On June 24,  1955,\t the
\nnames  of the present respondents were substituted  for\t the
\nsaid Court of Wards, as management of the said property\t was
\nreleased  as  and from April 15, 1955.\tBy  a  judgment\t and
\norder  dated  August 11, 1956 the  Controller  directed\t the
\neviction of the appellant subject to the respondents  paying
\ncompensation  either as agreed to between the parties or  as
\nmay be determined by him on an application made therefor  by
\neither\tof  the parties.  The Controller held  that  on\t the
\nexpiry\tof the said term the appellant became  a  trespasser
\nand  was not entitled to a six months notice as provided  by
\nthe  said lease and upheld the respondents’ contention\tthat
\nthey’ had satisfied the grounds as set out in cls. (iv), (v)
\nand  (vi)  of  s. 3 of the Act.\t  An  appeal  was  preferred
\nagainst\t the said judgment and order before the\t Subordinate
\nJudge at Alipore who dismissed it holding that the suit\t was
\ngoverned  by s. 5 of the Act, that after the expiry  of\t the
\nsaid  term there was no holding over by the appellant,\tthat
\nin  spite  of  the deletion of\tsection\t 29  the  Controller
\ncontinued  to have jurisdiction over matters transferred  to
\nhim  and pending at the date when the Amending Act  of\t1953
\ncame  into  force.  He, however, held that  the\t respondents
\nwere not entitled to evict the appellant on the ground\tthat
\nthey  required\tthe said land either for building on  it  or
\notherwise  developing  it but upheld their  contention\tthat
\nthey  were entitled to an order of eviction under  cls.\t (v)
\nand (vi) of s. 3. The appellant took,the matter to the\tHigh
\nCourt under Art. 227
\n479<\/span>
\nchallenging  the correctness of the said judgment and  order
\nwhich application was converted into Civil Revision No. 2612
\nof 1957.\n<\/p>\n
Before\tthe  High  Court two questions\twere  canvassed\t (1)
\nregarding the jurisdiction of the Controller after s. 29  of
\nthe  Act was deleted and (2) regarding the notice which\t the
\nappellant  claimed he was entitled to under the\t said  lease
\nbefore\t the  respondents  could.  exercise  any  right\t  of
\neviction.   The High Court was of the view that in spite  of
\nthe   deletion\tof  section  29\t the  jurisdiction  of\t the
\nController  in respect of matters pending before him at\t the
\ndate  of the coming into force of the said Amending Act\t was
\nsaved  and  also rejected the appellant’s contention  as  to
\nnotice on the ground that the non-obstante provision in s. 3
\nof  the Act entitled the landlords to a decree for  eviction
\nwithout\t first\tterminating  the contractual  tenancy  by  a
\nnotice\tas provided for by the said proviso to cl. 7 of\t the
\nsaid Deed of Lease.\n<\/p>\n
Mr. Agarwal for the appellant, at first raised four  conten-
\ntions before us, viz., (1) whether s. 3 of the Act  deprived
\na  tenant  of his rights under the lease,  (2)\twhether\t the
\nController  had jurisdiction to proceed with the case  after
\nthe deletion of s. 29 from the Act; (3) whether there was  a
\nrenewal\t of  the said lease and (4)  whether  the  appellant
\ncould  be evicted on the ground of sub-letting\teven  though
\nthe said lease expressly permitted him to sub-let.  However,
\nin  view  of the fact that only two  of\t these\tcontentions,
\nviz.,  regarding  jurisdiction and notice had  been  pressed
\nbefore he High Court he confined his arguments on those\t two
\nquestions  only.   The contention of Mr.  Agarwal  was\tthat
\nsince it was only by reason of s. 29 that the suit had\tbeen
\ntransferred  to the Controler the deletion of  that  section
\nfrom  the Act by section 8 of the Amendment Act of 1953\t had
\nthe effect of depriving the Controler of his jurisdiction to
\ntry the suit and therefore the judgment and order passed  by
\nhim  though confirmed by the learned Subordinate  Judge\t and
\nthe  High Court was without jurisdiction and therefore\tbad.
\nIn  our view, this contention has no force.  Though  section
\n29  was\t deleted by the Amendment Act of 1953  the  deletion
\nwould  not affect pending proceedings and would not  deprive
\nhe  Controller of his jurisdiction to try  such\t proceedings
\npending\t before him at the date when the Amendment Act\tcame
\ninto  force.  though the Amendment Act did not\tcontain\t any
\nsaving clause, under s. 8 of the Bengal General Clauses Act,
\n1899  the  transfer of the suit having\tbeen  lawfully\tmade
\nunder  section 9 of the Act its deletion would not have\t the
\neffect\tof altering the law applicable to the claim  in\t the
\nlitigation.   There is nothing in section 8 of the  Amending
\nAct  of 1953 suggesting a different intention and  therefore
\nthe  deletion  would not affect the  previous  operation  of
\nsection 5 of the Calcutta Thika Tenancy Act or the
\n480<\/span>
\ntransfer of the suit to the Controller or anything duly done
\nunder  section 29.  That being the correct position  in\t law
\nthe  High  Court was right in holding that in spite  of\t the
\ndeletion  of  section  29  the\tController  still  had\t the
\njurisdiction  to proceed with the said suit  transferred  to
\nhim.\n<\/p>\n
The  second  contention\t of Mr. Agarwal\t regarding  the\t six
\nmonths’\t notice\t as provided for in the lease  was  that  in
\nspite of the non-obstante provision in section 3 of the\t Act
\nthat provision did not have the effect of depriving a tenant
\nof  his\t right to have a notice before\ttermination  of\t his
\ntenancy\t if  he has such a right either under the  lease  or
\nunder  the Transfer of Property Act.  The argument was\tthat
\non  a  true  interpretation  of section 3  of  the  Act\t the
\nposition  was  that besides not depriving the  rights  of  a
\ntenant\tunder a contract of lease or under the\tgeneral\t law
\nthe section imposes further restrictions on the right of the
\nlandlord  to  evict  a tenant.\t Therefore,  a\tlandlord  is
\nentitled  to a decree for eviction only (a) if he has  first
\nterminated  the\t contractual  tenancy  and  (b)\t where\t the
\nlandlord  fulfils  the requirements of one or  more  of\t the
\nseveral\t grounds  in section 3. The Thika Tenancy  Act\tlike
\nsimilar Rent Acts passed in different States is intended  to
\nprevent\t indiscriminate eviction of tenants and is  intended
\nto  be\ta  protective  statute\tto  safeguard  security\t  of
\npossession  of tenants and therefore should be construed  in
\nthe light of its being a social legislation.  What section 3
\ntherefore does is to provide that even where a landlord\t has
\nterminated  the contractual tenancy by a proper notice\tsuch
\nlandlord can succeed in evicting his tenant provided that he
\nfalls under one or more of the clauses of that section.\t The
\nword ” notwithstanding” in section 3 on a true\tconstruction
\ntherefore  means that even where the contractual tenancy  is
\nproperly terminated, notwithstanding the landlord’s right to
\npossession  under  the\tTransfer  of  Property\tAct  or\t the
\ncontract  of  lease  he cannot evict the  tenant  unless  he
\nsatisfied any One of the grounds set out in section 3.\tRent
\nActs   are  not\t ordinarily  intended  to   interfere\twith
\ncontractual  leases  and  are Acts  for\t the  protection  of
\ntenants\t and are consequently restrictive and not  enabling,
\nconferring  no\tnew  rights of action  but  restricting\t the
\nexisting  rights  either  under the contract  or  under\t the
\ngeneral\t law.\tIt is well settled  that  statutory  tenancy
\nnormally arises when a tenant under a lease holds over, that
\nis,   he   remains  in\tpossession  after  the\t expiry\t  or
\ndetermination  of  the\tcontractual  tenancy.\tA  statutory
\ntenancy, therefore comes into existence where a\t contractual
\ntenant\tretains\t possession  after  the\t contract  has\tbeen
\ndetermined.   The right to hold over, that is, the right  of
\nirrermovability, thus is a right which comes into  existence
\nafter  the  expiration of the lease and until the  lease  is
\nterminated or expires by efflux of time the tenant need\t not
\nseek protection under the Rent Act.  For, he is protected by
\nhis lease in breach of which he cannot be evicted. (See
\n481<\/span>
\nMeghji\tLakshamshi and Bros., v. Furniture  Workship.(1)  In
\nAbasbhai v. Gulamnabi(2), this Court clearly stated that the
\nRent  Act  did not give a right to the landlord to  evict  a
\ncontractual tenant without first determining the contractual
\ntenancy.   In  Mangilal v. Sugan Chand(3)  while  construing
\nsection\t 4 of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation\tControl\t Act
\n(XXIII\tof  1965),  a section similar to section  3  of\t the
\npresent Act, this Court held that the provisions of  section
\n4  of that Act were in addition to those of the Transfer  of
\nProperty Act and therefore before a tenant could be  evicted
\nby  a landlord, he must comply with both the  provisions  of
\nsection\t 106  of the Transfer of Property Act and  those  of
\nsection\t 4.  The Court further observed\t that  notice  under
\nsection\t  106  was  essential  to  bring  to  an   end\t the
\nrelationship   of  landlord  and  tenant  and  unless\tthat
\nrelationship  was  validly  terminated by  giving  a  proper
\nnotice\tunder  s. 106 of the Transfer of Property  Act,\t the
\nlandlord could not get the right to obtain possession of the
\npremises by evicting the tenant. (See also Haji Mohammad  v.
\nRebati\tBhushan.)(4).  In Monmatha Nath v.  Banarasi(5)\t the
\nHigh  Court at Calcutta while dealing with the present\tAct,
\nheld  that  in matters not dealt with by the  Act  it  would
\nstill  be  the Transfer of Property Act which  would  apply,
\nfor, the Thika Tenancy Act is not a complete Code and  deals
\nonly  with  some  aspects of Thika  Tenancy.   It  does\t not
\nprovide\t for  the rights and liabilities of the\t lessor\t and
\nlessee in a Thika tenancy and therefore, for those purposes,
\none has still to look to the Transfer of Property Act.\t The
\nonly  decision\twhich  has  taken  a  contrary\tview  is  R.
\nKrishnamurthy  v.  Parthasarathy(6) where it was  held\tthat
\nsecton\t7 of the Madras Buildings (Lease and  Rent  Control)
\nAct XV of 1946 had its own scheme of procedure and therefore
\nthere  was no question of an attempt to reconcile  that\t Act
\nwith  the Transfer of Property Act.  On that view, the\tHigh
\nCourt held that an application for eviction could be made to
\nthe Rent Controller even before the contractual tenancy\t was
\nterminated  by a notice to quit.  That decision\t is  clearly
\ncontrary  to  the  decisions of\t this  Court  in  Abasbhai’s
\nCase(1) and Mangilal’s Case (2) and therefore is not correct
\nlaw.\n<\/p>\n
It was, however, argued by Mr. Sarjooprasad on behalf of the
\nrespondents  that on the footing that the provisions of\t the
\nThika  Act could only be availed of by a landlord after\t the
\ntermination  of\t the contractual tenancy  no  notice  either
\nunder  section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act or  under
\nthe  lease  was necessary in the present case as  the  lease
\nexpired by efflux of time and no renewal was agreed upon  by
\nthe parties.  Therefore, since the lease expired the  lessee
\nin the absence of any such renewal was
\n(1) [1954] A.C. 80 at p. 90.\n<\/p>\n
(3) A.I.R. 1965 S.C. 101.\n<\/p>\n
(5) 63 C.W.N. 824 at 831.\n<\/p>\n
(2) A.I.R. 1964 S.C. 1341.\n<\/p>\n
(4) 53 C.W.N. 859.\n<\/p>\n
(6) A.I.R. 1949 Mad. 750.\n<\/p>\n
482<\/span><\/p>\n
bound  to hand over vacant possession to the respondents  as
\nprovided  by clause 7 of the said lease.  Mr. Sarjoo  prasad
\nargued\tthat in the absence of any renewal of the  lease  if
\nthe appellant continued to be in possession of the  property
\nin  suit  his  possession  was\tthat  of  a  trespasser\t and
\ntherefore  there was no question of any notice having to  be
\ngiven\tto   him.   The\t construction\tsuggested   by\t Mr.
\nSarjooprasad  cannot be upheld as such a construction  would
\nbe contrary to the express language of the proviso to clause
\n7 of the lease.\t As already stated clause 7 requires that on
\nthe determination of the lease by efflux of time or  earlier
\ntermination the lessee has to hand over vacant possession of
\nthe  land  in  its  original  position\tafter  removing\t the
\nstructures  constructed thereon by him.\t If  the  structures
\nare not so removed the lessee has to sell them to the lesser
\nat  a valuation to be fixed by the lessor’s Engineer.\tWhat
\nwould happen in a case where the tenant is not informed\t and
\ndoes  not know whether his lease which is for a\t fixed\tterm
\nwould be extended by a renewal or otherwise ? If there is no
\nprovision  for an option to renew and the landlord does\t not
\nextend the term, he has, of course, to vacate on the  expiry
\nof the term.  But where the lease provides for an option and
\nthe tenant exercises the option it is but fair and equitable
\nthat he must know in good time whether the lessor agrees  to
\nthe renewal or not.  It is to provide against a\t contingency
\nwhere  the  lessee  would  have\t to  quit  without  a\tfair
\nopportunity to dispose of the structures he has put up\tthat
\nthe proviso was added in cl. 7 of the lease and that proviso
\nmust  be  given\t effect\t to.   The  proviso  lays  down\t the
\ncondition  of six months’ notice ending with the  expiry  of
\nthe  term  clearly  to\tenable\tthe  lessee  to\t remove\t the
\nstructures,  if\t need be, if the lease was  not\t renewed  or
\nextended.   The object of inserting such a  condition  being
\nclear as aforesaid it would not be right to construe  clause
\n7   and\t its  proviso  in  the\tmanner\tsuggested   by\t the
\nrespondents.\n<\/p>\n
To nsummarise the position : The Thika Tenancy Act does\t not
\nconfer\tany additional rights on a landlord but on the\tcon-
\ntrary  imposes certain restrictions on his right to evict  a
\ntenant under the general law or under the contract of lease.
\nThe Thika Act like other Rent Acts enacted in various States
\nimposes\t certain  further restrictions on the right  of\t the
\nlandlord  to evict his tenant and lays down that the  status
\nof irremovability of a tenant cannot be got rid of except on
\nspecified  grounds  set out in section 3. The right  of\t the
\nappellant therefore to have a notice as provided for by\t the
\nproviso\t to  clause  7 of the Lease was not  in\t any  manner
\naffected  by section 3 of the Thika Act.  The effect of\t the
\nnon-obstante clause was that even where a landlord has\tduly
\nterminated the contractual tenancy or is otherwise  entitled
\nto  evict his tenant he would still be entitled to a  decree
\nfor  eviction provided that his claim for  possession  falls
\nunder any one or more of or the grounds
\n483<\/span>
\nin section 3. Before therefore the respondents could be said
\nto  be entitled to a decree for eviction they had  first  to
\ngive six months notice as required by the proviso to  clause
\n7  of the lease and such notice not having  been  admittedly
\ngiven their suit for eviction could not succeed.
\nIn  our\t view the construction placed by the High  Court  on
\nsection\t 3 was not correct and the High Court was  wrong  in
\nholding\t that the words “notwithstanding anything  contained
\nin  any\t other\tlaw for the time being in force\t or  in\t any
\ncontract” absolved the respondents from their obligation  to
\ngive the six months notice to the appellant before  claiming
\nfrom him vacant possession of the land in question.
\nIn  the result, we allow the appeal, set aside the  judgment
\nand  order  passed  by\tthe  High  Court  and  dismiss\t the
\nrespondent’s   suit.   The  respondents\t will  pay  to\t the
\nappellant his costs all throughout.\n<\/p>\n
G.C.\t\t\t\t  Appeal allowed.\n484<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Manujendra Dutt vs Purendu Prosad Roy Chowdhury & Ors on 22 September, 1966 Equivalent citations: 1967 AIR 1419, 1967 SCR (1) 475 Author: Shelat Bench: Shelat, J.M. PETITIONER: MANUJENDRA DUTT Vs. RESPONDENT: PURENDU PROSAD ROY CHOWDHURY & ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 22\/09\/1966 BENCH: SHELAT, J.M. BENCH: SHELAT, J.M. RAO, K. SUBBA […]<\/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-39359","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nManujendra Dutt vs Purendu Prosad Roy Chowdhury & Ors on 22 September, 1966 - 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\/manujendra-dutt-vs-purendu-prosad-roy-chowdhury-ors-on-22-september-1966\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Manujendra Dutt vs Purendu Prosad Roy Chowdhury & Ors on 22 September, 1966 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manujendra-dutt-vs-purendu-prosad-roy-chowdhury-ors-on-22-september-1966\" \/>\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=\"1966-09-21T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-03-09T10:00:32+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=\"22 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/manujendra-dutt-vs-purendu-prosad-roy-chowdhury-ors-on-22-september-1966#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/manujendra-dutt-vs-purendu-prosad-roy-chowdhury-ors-on-22-september-1966\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Manujendra Dutt vs Purendu Prosad Roy Chowdhury & Ors on 22 September, 1966\",\"datePublished\":\"1966-09-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-03-09T10:00:32+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/manujendra-dutt-vs-purendu-prosad-roy-chowdhury-ors-on-22-september-1966\"},\"wordCount\":3666,\"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\\\/manujendra-dutt-vs-purendu-prosad-roy-chowdhury-ors-on-22-september-1966#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/manujendra-dutt-vs-purendu-prosad-roy-chowdhury-ors-on-22-september-1966\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/manujendra-dutt-vs-purendu-prosad-roy-chowdhury-ors-on-22-september-1966\",\"name\":\"Manujendra Dutt vs Purendu Prosad Roy Chowdhury & Ors on 22 September, 1966 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1966-09-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-03-09T10:00:32+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/manujendra-dutt-vs-purendu-prosad-roy-chowdhury-ors-on-22-september-1966#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/manujendra-dutt-vs-purendu-prosad-roy-chowdhury-ors-on-22-september-1966\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/manujendra-dutt-vs-purendu-prosad-roy-chowdhury-ors-on-22-september-1966#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Manujendra Dutt vs Purendu Prosad Roy Chowdhury & Ors on 22 September, 1966\"}]},{\"@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":"Manujendra Dutt vs Purendu Prosad Roy Chowdhury & Ors on 22 September, 1966 - 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\/manujendra-dutt-vs-purendu-prosad-roy-chowdhury-ors-on-22-september-1966","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Manujendra Dutt vs Purendu Prosad Roy Chowdhury & Ors on 22 September, 1966 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manujendra-dutt-vs-purendu-prosad-roy-chowdhury-ors-on-22-september-1966","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1966-09-21T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-03-09T10:00:32+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":"22 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manujendra-dutt-vs-purendu-prosad-roy-chowdhury-ors-on-22-september-1966#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manujendra-dutt-vs-purendu-prosad-roy-chowdhury-ors-on-22-september-1966"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Manujendra Dutt vs Purendu Prosad Roy Chowdhury & Ors on 22 September, 1966","datePublished":"1966-09-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-03-09T10:00:32+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manujendra-dutt-vs-purendu-prosad-roy-chowdhury-ors-on-22-september-1966"},"wordCount":3666,"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\/manujendra-dutt-vs-purendu-prosad-roy-chowdhury-ors-on-22-september-1966#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manujendra-dutt-vs-purendu-prosad-roy-chowdhury-ors-on-22-september-1966","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manujendra-dutt-vs-purendu-prosad-roy-chowdhury-ors-on-22-september-1966","name":"Manujendra Dutt vs Purendu Prosad Roy Chowdhury & Ors on 22 September, 1966 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1966-09-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-03-09T10:00:32+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manujendra-dutt-vs-purendu-prosad-roy-chowdhury-ors-on-22-september-1966#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manujendra-dutt-vs-purendu-prosad-roy-chowdhury-ors-on-22-september-1966"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manujendra-dutt-vs-purendu-prosad-roy-chowdhury-ors-on-22-september-1966#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Manujendra Dutt vs Purendu Prosad Roy Chowdhury & Ors on 22 September, 1966"}]},{"@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\/39359","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=39359"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/39359\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=39359"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=39359"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=39359"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}