{"id":5452,"date":"1980-08-22T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1980-08-21T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jain-ink-manufacturing-company-vs-life-insurance-corporation-of-on-22-august-1980"},"modified":"2015-01-21T10:05:51","modified_gmt":"2015-01-21T04:35:51","slug":"jain-ink-manufacturing-company-vs-life-insurance-corporation-of-on-22-august-1980","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jain-ink-manufacturing-company-vs-life-insurance-corporation-of-on-22-august-1980","title":{"rendered":"Jain Ink Manufacturing Company vs Life Insurance Corporation Of … on 22 August, 1980"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Jain Ink Manufacturing Company vs Life Insurance Corporation Of … on 22 August, 1980<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1981 AIR 670, \t\t 1981 SCR (1) 498<\/div>\n
Author: S M Fazalali<\/div>\n
Bench: Fazalali, Syed Murtaza<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nJAIN INK MANUFACTURING COMPANY\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nLIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA & ANR.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT22\/08\/1980\n\nBENCH:\nFAZALALI, SYED MURTAZA\nBENCH:\nFAZALALI, SYED MURTAZA\nCHANDRACHUD, Y.V. ((CJ)\nKOSHAL, A.D.\n\nCITATION:\n 1981 AIR  670\t\t  1981 SCR  (1) 498\n 1980 SCC  (4) 435\n CITATOR INFO :\n D\t    1988 SC1708\t (23)\n RF\t    1991 SC 855\t (45)\n\n\nACT:\n     Public Premises  (Eviction of  Unauthorised  occupants)\nAct, 1971,  S. 2(2)(g)-\t Unauthorised occupation  of  public\npremises-Tenant in  possession before  the  premises  became\npublic premises-Eviction  whether can  be ordered  under the\nAct.\n     Public Premises  (Eviction of  Unauthorised  occupants)\nAct, 1971,  Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (59 of 1958) & Slum\nAreas  (Improvement   and  Clearance)  Act  1956-over-riding\neffect of  Acts-No conflict as scope and objects of Acts are\ndifferent-Premises Act whether prevails over Rent Act.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n     The L.I.C. (respondent No. 1) purchased a building at a\ncourt auction. The appellant was inducted as a tenant by the\nprior owner  of the  premises. The  L.l.C. gave notice under\nsection 106  of the  Transfer of  Property Act directing the\nappellant to  vacate the  premises. As the appellant did not\nvacate the  premises the  L.I.C. filed\ta complaint with the\nEstate\tOfficer,   L.I.C.  (respondent\t No.  2)  under\t the\nprovisions of  the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised\noccupants) Act\t1971, who  issued a  notice to the appellant\nunder section  4(1)  of\t the  Act  to  show  cause  why\t the\nappellant be  not evicted.  Before the\tEstate\tOfficer\t the\nappellant raised  preliminary objections which related to th\nequestion of  jurisdiction of  the Estate Officer to proceed\nunder the  Premises Act.  The  Estate  Officer\tdecided\t the\nquestion against him and the High Court confirmed the order.\n     In appeal\tto this\t Court on behalf of the appellant it\nwas contended:\t(1) The\t appellant could not be described as\nan 'unauthorised  occupant' within  the meaning\t of  section\n2(2)(g)\t of  the  1971\tAct  because  he  had  entered\tinto\npossession of  the premises  long before they were purchased\nby the\tL.I.C.; (2)(i).\t The Premises  Act of 1971 which had\nbeen given  retrospective effect  from the  16th  September,\n1958 should be construed as a law having been passed in 1958\nand so\tconstrued the  Rent Act (The Delhi Rent Control Act)\npassed in  1959 over-rides  the Premises  Act; (ii) The Rent\nAct which  is a\t special law would override the Premises Act\nand (iii)  The intention  of the  Legislature in passing the\nRent Act  as seen  from section\t 3(a) was  merely to exclude\nfrom its operation only premises belonging to the Government\nand if the intention was to exclude other premises belonging\nto corporate  bodies or Corporations then section 3(a) would\nhave been differently worded.\n     Apart from the Rent Act section, Section 19 of the Slum\nAreas (Improvement  and Clearance) Act, 1956 which is also a\nSpecial Act  applying only to such places which are declared\nto be  slums under the Act, would override the provisions of\nboth the Rent Act and the Premises Act.\n499\n     Dismissing the Appeal:\n^\n     HELD:  (1)(a)   The  appellant   was   undoubtedly\t  in\nunauthorised occupation of the premises. [503 D]\n     (b) Section  2(2)(g) does not use the word 'possession'\nor the words 'entry into possession' at any point of time at\nall. The  section merely  requires occupation  of any public\npremises.  Entry   into\t possession   connotes\tone   single\nterminus, viz.,\t the point of time when a person enters into\npossession or  occupies the property whereas occupation is a\ncontinuous process which starts right from the point of time\nwhen the  person enters\t into  possession  or  occupies\t the\npremises  and\tcontinues  until  he  leaves  the  premises.\n[502 G-H]\n     In the  instant case  the lease  was determined  by the\nlandlord by  a notice  under section  106 of the Transfer of\nProperty Act.  Therefore, there\t can be\t no doubt  that\t the\nappellant was  in unauthorised\toccupation of  the  premises\nonce the lease was determined. [503 Cl\n     Raj Kumar\tDevendra Singh & Anr. v. State of Punjab and\nOrs.<\/a> [1973] 2 SCR 166 distinguished.\n     2(i) The  Premises Act was passed in 1971 and came into\nforce on  23rd August,\t1971 that is long after the Rent Act\nwas passed  in 1959.  The mere\tfact that  by  virtue  of  a\nfiction the Premises Act was given retrospective effect from\n1958 will  not alter  the date\twhen the  Premises  Act\t was\nactually passed,  that is  August 23, 1971. The Premises Act\nbeing subsequent  to the  Rent Act  would naturally  prevail\nover and override the provisions of the Rent Act. [503 G]\n     (ii) The  scope and  the object  of the Premises Act is\nquite different\t from that  of the Rent Act. The Rent Act is\nof much\t wider application,  inasmuch as  it applies  to all\nprivate premises,  which do  not  fall\twithin\tthe  limited\nexceptions indicated  in section  2 of the Premises Act. The\nobject of  the Rent  Act is  to afford special protection to\nall the\t tenants or  private landlords\twho  are  neither  a\nCorporation nor\t Government or\tCorporate Bodies. Even under\nthe Rent  Act, a  special category  has been  carved out  by\nsection\t 25B   which  provides\tfor  special  procedure\t for\neviction  to   landlords  who  require\tpremises  for  their\npersonal  necessity.   Section\t25B,  therefore,  becomes  a\nspecial law within the Rent Act. Therefore, the Premises Act\nas compared  to the Rent Act, is a Special Act and overrides\nthe provisions of the Rent Act. [505 B-C]\n     Sarwan Singh  & Anr.  v. Kasturi Lal<\/a> [1977] 2 SCR 421 &\nShri Ram  Narain v.  The Simla Banking & Industrial Co. Ltd.<\/a>\n[1956] SCR 603 referred to.\n     (iii) once\t the Premises  Act  becomes  a\tSpecial\t Act\ndealing\t with\tthe  premises\tbelonging  to\tthe  Central\nGovernment, Corporations  and other  statutory\tbodies,\t the\nRent Act stands superseded. [505 F]\n     3. Section\t 19 of\tthe Slums  Act shows  that it  is in\ndirect\tconflict  with\tthe  Premises  Act  which  expressly\nprovides for  the forum for evicting persons in unauthorised\noccupation of  premises which  fell  in\t section  2  of\t the\nPremises Act The Premises Act, being subsequent to the Slums\nAct, as\t amended in  1964, and\tagain being  a\tspecial\t Act\nhaving a  very limited sphere, must necessarily override the\nSlums Act. [506 D]\n500\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
     CIVIL APPELLATE  JURISDICTION: Civil  Appeal No. 224 of
\n1979.\n<\/p>\n
     Appeal by\tSpecial Leave  from the\t Judgment and  Order
\ndated 6-12-1978 of the Delhi High Court in C.W. No. 1361\/78.\n<\/p>\n
     P.\t Parameswara   Rao  and\t  R.  Nagarathnam   for\t the
\nAppellant.\n<\/p>\n
     K. Parasaran,  Sol. Genl., V. Gauri Shanker, K.L. Hathi
\nand Mrs. Hemantika Wahi for the Respondents.\n<\/p>\n
     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\n     FAZAL ALI,\t J.-This appeal by special leave is directed
\nagainst a  Division Bench judgment dated December 6, 1978 of
\nthe High  Court of  Delhi and  arises  under  the  following
\ncircumstances.\n<\/p>\n
     The appellant was inducted as a tenant by one Mithanlal
\nwho was\t the owner  of the premises in question and the rent
\npayable at  the time of the tenancy-was Rs 55 per month. The
\npremises were,\thowever, purchased  by\tthe  Life  Insurance
\nCorporation of\tIndia (for short, LIC) at a court auction on
\nJuly 19, 1958 and the appellant in view of the same attorned
\nto the new landlord, namely, the LIC. The Delhi Rent Control
\nAct of 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Rent Act’) came
\ninto force  on February 9, 1959 and on July 24, 1969 the new
\nlandlord gave  a notice\t under s.  106 of  the\tTransfer  of
\nProperty Act  to the appellant determining the tenancy. This
\nnotice, however,  was subsequently  withdrawn and after some
\ncorrespondence with  the appellant the rent was increased by
\nthe LIC\t from Rs.  55 to Rs. 125 per month. Sometime towards
\nthe end\t of July  1966, the LIC gave a fresh notice under s.
\n106 of\tthe Transfer of Property Act purporting to determine
\nthe tenancy. Thereafter, there were some parleys between the
\nLIC and\t the appellant\tand ultimately\tthe  LIC  agreed  to
\naccept the  enhanced rent  of Rs.  300 per  month  from\t the
\nappellant with\teffect from  December 1,  1976. On April 23,
\n1977 the  LIC gave  another notice  under s. 106 superseding
\nthe previous  notice and  directing the\t appellant to vacate
\nthe premises on or before May 31, 1977. As the appellant did
\nnot vacate  the premises,  the LIC  filed a  complaint\twith
\nrespondent  No.\t  2,  the  Estate  Officer,  LIC  under\t the
\nprovisions of  the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised
\nOccupants)  Act,   1971\t (hereinafter  referred\t to  as\t the
\n‘Premises Act’).  Thereafter, the second respondent issued a
\nnotice to the appellant under s. 4(1) of the Premises Act to
\nshow cause  why the  appellant be not evicted. The appellant
\nappeared  before  the  Estate  Officer\tand  raised  certain
\npreliminary objections\twhich having  been  decided  against
\nhim, the  appellant filed  a writ petition in the Delhi High
\nCourt against the order of the Estate Officer and reiterated
\nthe preliminary objections taken by him before
\n501<\/span>
\nthe  Estate   Officer.\tAfter  considering  the\t preliminary
\nobjections  which   mainly  related   to  the\tquestion  of
\njurisdiction of\t the Estate  officer to\t proceed  under\t the
\nPremises Act,  the High\t Court overruled  all the objections
\nand dismissed  the writ\t petition in  limine,  though  by  a
\nreasoned order. Hence, this appeal to the Supreme Court.\n<\/p>\n
     Before dealing  with the  contention raised  by counsel
\nfor the\t respondent we\tmight mention  that the\t proceedings
\nbefore the  Estate officer  under the Premises Act have only
\nbeen stayed  and not  yet  decided  on\tmerits\tbecause\t the
\nappellant wanted  the Estate  officer to decide the question
\nof jurisdiction as a preliminary issue.\n<\/p>\n
     In support\t of the appeal, Mr. Parmeshwar Rao submitted
\nthree main  contentions before\tus. In\tthe first  place, he
\nsubmitted that the provisions of the Premises Act would have
\nno application to the present premises because the appellant
\ncould not be described as an unauthorised occupant as he had
\nentered into  possession of  the premises  long before\tthey
\nwere purchased\tby the LIC. It was argued that the condition
\nprecedent for  the assumption  of jurisdiction by the Estate
\nofficer was  that the  appellant  must\tbe  an\tunauthorised
\noccupant, and if the possession of the appellant was lawful,
\nthough\tthe   property\tchanged\t  hands\t subsequently,\t the
\nappellant could\t not be\t dubbed as an unauthorised occupant.
\nIn this\t connection, reliance  was placed  on a\t decision of
\nthis Court  in Rajkumar\t Devindera Singh  & Anr. v. State of
\nPunjab &  Ors We have gone through the decision cited before
\nus and\twe find that the provisions of the Punjab Act, which
\nwas the\t subject matter\t of interpretation  by this Court in
\nthat case,  were substantially and materially different from
\ns. 2(2)(g)  of the  Premises Act  which defines unauthorised
\noccupation.  Mr.   Rao,\t however,  strongly  relied  on\t the
\nfollowing observations\tmade  by  this\tCourt  in  the\tcase
\nsupra:-\n<\/p>\n
\t  “If the  appellants were  in possession before the
\n     date of  the sale of the property to the Government, it
\n     could not\tbe said\t that the  appellants  entered\tinto
\n     possession of  public premises,  for, at  the time when
\n     they were\tin occupation  of the property, the property
\n     was not  public premises.\tThen it was either the joint
\n     family  property  or  the\tproperty  of  the  Maharaja,
\n     namely, Yadavindra\t Singh. The  property was not public
\n     premises before it was sold to the Government.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
If these  observations of  this\t Court\tare  torn  from\t the
\ncontext they  may presumably  support the  argument  of\t the
\nappellant but  we have\tto read\t these observations  in\t the
\nlight of  the specific\tprovisions  of\tthe  Punjab,  Public
\nPremises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act,
\n502<\/span>
\n1959 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Punjab Act’). Relevant
\nportion of s. 3 of that Act may be extracted thus:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “For purposes\t of this  Act,\ta  person  shall  be
\n     deemed to\tbe in  unauthorised occupation of any public
\n     premises:-<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (a) where  he has  whether  before  or  after\t the
\n\t  commencement of  this Act, entered into possession
\n\t  thereof otherwise  than under\t and in pursuance of
\n\t  any allotment, lease or grant.” [Emphasis Ours]
\n     It would  be seen that before a person could be said to
\nbe in  an unauthorised\toccupation,  the  Act  required\t the
\nfollowing conditions:-\n<\/p>\n
     (1)   that the  occupant had  entered  into  possession
\n\t  before or after the commencement of the Act.
\n     (2)  that he had entered into such possession otherwise
\n\t  than under  and in  pursuance\t of  any  allotment,
\n\t  lease or grant.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
That Act,  therefore, lays special stress on only one point,
\nnamely, the  entry into\t possession. Thus, if the entry into
\npossession had\ttaken place prior to the passing of the Act,
\nthen obviously\tthe  occupant  concerned  would\t not  be  an
\nunauthorised occupant.\tWhat made the occupancy unauthorised
\nwas his entry into possession at a particular point of time.
\nIt was\tin construing  these provisions that this Court held
\nthat if\t the appellants\t in that  case\twere  in  possession
\nbefore the  sale of  the property  to the  Government, their
\nentry into  possession could not be said to be unauthorised.
\nThese  observations,   however,\t would\thave  absolutely  no
\napplication to\tthe instant  case where\t s. 2(2)(g)  defines
\nunauthorised occupation thus:-\n<\/p>\n
\t  “unauthorised\t occupation’,  in  relation  to\t any
\n     public premises,  means the occupation by any person of
\n     the  public   premises  without   authority  for\tsuch
\n     occupation, and  includes the continuance in occupation
\n     by\t any   person  of  the\tpublic\tpremises  after\t the
\n     authority (whether by way of grant or any other mode of
\n     transfer) under  which he\twas allowed  to\t occupy\t the
\n     premises has  expired or  has been\t determined for\t any
\n     reason whatsoever.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
To begin  with, it  is manifest that s. 2(2)(g) does not use
\nthe word  ‘possession’ or  the words ‘entry into possession’
\nat any\tpoint of  time at  all. The  section merely requires
\noccupation of  any public  premises. Entry  into  possession
\nconnotes one single terminus, viz., the point of time when a
\nperson enters  into  possession\t or  occupies  the  property
\nwhereas occupation  is a  continuous  process  which  starts
\nright from  the point  of time\twhen the  person enters into
\npossession or  occupies the  premises and continues until he
\nleaves the  premises. What  is germane\tfor the\t purpose  of
\ninterpretation of  s. 2(2)(g)  is whether  or not the person
\nconcerned was in occupation of the public premises when the
\n503<\/span>
\nPremises Act  was passed.  In the  instant case,  it is\t not
\ndisputed that the appellant continued to occupy the property
\neven after  the Premises  Act came  into force\tand in\tfact
\naccepted the  LIC as  his landlord.  In these circumstances,
\ntherefore, the\tcase of\t the appellant squarely falls within
\nthe ambit  of the definition of ‘unauthorised occupation’ as
\ncontemplated by\t s. 2(2)(g).  There is yet another aspect of
\nthe matter  which distinguishes\t the present  case from\t the
\nlanguage employed  in the  Punjab Act. Section 2(2)(g) is an
\ninclusive definition  and consists of two separate limbs-(1)
\nwhere a\t person is  in occupation  in relation to any public
\npremises without authority for such occupation, and (2) even
\nif the\tpossession or  occupation of  the  tenant  continues
\nafter the  lease is  determined. In  the instant  case,\t the
\nlease was  doubtless determined\t by the landlord by a notice
\nunder s.  106 of the Transfer of Property Act whose validity
\nfor purposes  of deciding  the question\t of law has not been
\nquestioned  by\t the  learned  counsel\tfor  the  appellant.
\nTherefore, there  can be  no doubt that the appellant was in
\nunauthorised occupation\t of the\t premises once the lease was
\ndetermined. The\t second limb  mentioned\t in  s.\t 2(2)(g)  is
\nconspicuously absent  from the provisions of the Punjab Act.
\nFor these  reasons, we\toverrule the first contention raised
\nby the\tcounsel for the appellant and we hold, agreeing with
\nthe High  Court,  that\tthe  appellant\twas  undoubtedly  in
\nunauthorised occupation of the premises.\n<\/p>\n
     The second\t contention put\t forward by Mr. Rao was that
\nin view of the provisions of the Rent Act which override the
\nprovisions of  the Premises  Act, s.  14  of  the  Rent\t Act
\ncompletely bars\t recovery  of  possession  of  any  premises
\nexcept in  accordance with  the procedure  laid down  in the
\nRent Act.  It was  contended by\t Mr. Rao  that although\t the
\nPremises  Act\twas  passed  in\t 1971,\tit  has\t been  given
\nretrospective  effect\tfrom  16th   September\t 1958\tand,
\ntherefore, should  be construed\t as a law having been passed
\nin 1958\t and as the Rent Act was passed in 1959 it overrides
\nthe Premises Act. We are, however, unable to agree with this
\nargument. In the first place, the Premises Act was passed in
\n1971 and came into force on the 23rd of August 1971, that is
\nto say, long after the Rent Act was passed in 1959. The mere
\nfact that  by virtue of a fiction the Premises Act was given
\nretrospective effect  from 1958 will not alter the date when
\nthe Premises  Act was actually passed, that is to say August
\n23, 1971.  In these  circumstances, therefore,\tthe Premises
\nAct being subsequent to the Rent Act would naturally prevail
\nover and  override the\tprovisions of  the Rent\t Act. It was
\nfurther contended  by Mr.  Rao that  the Rent  Act  being  a
\nspecial law  as\t compared  to  the  Premises  Act,  it\twill
\noverride the Premises Act without going into the question as
\nto which  of the  two Acts  were prior\tin point of time. In
\nsupport of his contention the
\n504<\/span>
\ncounsel relied on a decision of this Court in Sarwan Singh &
\nAnr. v. Kasturi Lal<\/a> where this Court observed as follows:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “When two  or more  laws operate in the same field
\n     and each  contains a  non-obstante clause\tstating that
\n     its provisions  will override  those of  any other law,
\n     stimulating and  incisive\tproblems  of  interpretation
\n     arise.   Since    statutory   interpretation   has\t  no
\n     conventional protocol,  cases of  such conflict have to
\n     be decided\t in reference  to the  object and purpose of
\n     the laws under consideration.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t\t\t\t (emphasis supplied)
\n     It is  true that  in both\tthe Acts  there\t is  a\tnon-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
obstante clause but the question to be determined is whether
\nthe non-obstante  clauses operate  in the same field or have
\ntwo different  spheres though  there may  be some  amount of
\noverlapping. The  observations cited  above clearly lay down
\nthat in\t such cases  the  conflict  should  be\tresolved  by
\nreference  to\tthe  object  and  purpose  of  the  laws  in
\nconsideration. In  Shri Ram  Narain v.\tThe Simla  Banking &
\nIndustrial  Co.\t Ltd.,<\/a>(2)  this\t Court\tmade  the  following
\nobservations:-\n<\/p>\n
\t  “It  is  therefore,  desirable  to  determine\t the
\n     overriding effect\tof one\tor the other of the relevant
\n     provisions in  these two Acts, in a given case, on much
\n     broader  considerations   of  the\tpurpose\t and  policy
\n     underlying\t the  two  Acts\t and  the  clear  intendment
\n     conveyed by  the language\tof the\trelevant  provisions
\n     therein.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     In the  light  of\tthe  principles\t laid  down  in\t the
\naforesaid cases\t we would  test the  position in the present
\ncase. So far as the Premises Act is concerned it operates in
\na very\tlimited field  in that\tit applies only to a limited
\nnature of  premises belonging  only to\tparticular  sets  of
\nindividuals, a\tparticular  set\t of  juristic  persons\tlike
\ncompanies, corporations or the Central Government. Thus, the
\nPremises Act  has a  very limited application. Secondly, the
\nobject of  the Premises\t Act is\t to provide  for eviction of
\nunauthorised occupants\tfrom public  premises by  a  summary
\nprocedure so  that the\tpremises may  be  available  to\t the
\nauthorities mentioned in the Premises Act which constitute a
\nclass by  themselves. That  the\t authorities  to  which\t the
\nPremises Act  applies are  a  class  by\t themselves  is\t not
\ndisputed by  the counsel  for the  appellant as\t even in the
\ncase of Northern India Caterers Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. State of
\nPunjab &  Anr.<\/a> such  authorities were  held to\tform a class
\nand, therefore,\t immune from  challenge on  Art. 14  of\t the
\nConstitution. Similarly, the summary procedure prescribed by
\nthe Premises Act is also not violative of Art, 14 as held by
\nthis Court in
\n505<\/span>
\nMaganlal Chhagganlal  (P) Ltd.\tv. Municipal  Corporation of
\nGreater Bombay & Ors.<\/a>(1).\n<\/p>\n
     Thus, it  would appear  that both\tthe  scope  and\t the
\nobject of  the Premises\t Act is quite different from that of
\nthe Rent Act. The Rent Act is of much wider application than
\nthe Premises  Act inasmuch  as it  applies  to\tall  private
\npremises which\tdo not\tfall within  the limited  exceptions
\nindicated in  s. 2  of the  Premises Act.  The object of the
\nRent Act  is to afford special protection to all the tenants
\nor  private   landlords\t or  landlords\twho  are  neither  a
\nCorporation nor\t Government or Corporate Bodies. It would be
\nseen that even under the Rent Act, by virtue of an amendment
\na special  category has\t been carved  out under s. 25B which
\nprovides for special procedure for eviction to landlords who
\nrequire premises  for their personal necessity. Thus, s. 25B
\nitself becomes\ta special  law within  the Rent\t Act.  On  a
\nparity of  reasoning, therefore,  there can be no doubt that
\nthe Premises  Act as  compared to  the Rent Act, which has a
\nvery broad  spectrum, is  a Special  Act and  overrides\t the
\nprovisions of the Rent Act.\n<\/p>\n
     It was  also suggested  by Mr.  Rao that  in view of s.
\n3(a) of\t the Rent  Act, which  is extracted  below, it would
\nappear that  the intention of the legislature in passing the
\nRent Act  was merely  to exclude  from\tits  operation\tonly
\npremises belonging  to the  Government and  if the intention
\nwas to\texclude other premises belonging to corporate Bodies
\nor Corporations,  then s.  3(a) should have been differently
\nworded:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “3. Nothing in this Act shall apply:-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t       (a)     to  any\tpremises  belonging  to\t the\n\t\t    Government.\"\n<\/pre>\n
This in\t our opinion,  does not\t advance  the  case  of\t the
\nappellant any  further because once the Premises Act becomes
\na special  Act dealing\twith premises  belonging to  Central
\nGovernment, Corporations  and other  statutory\tBodies,\t the
\nRent  Act   stands  superseded.\t We  have  to  consider\t the
\nprovisions of  the two\tActs, they having been passed by the
\nsame  legislature,   viz.,  Parliament,\t  and  the  rule  of
\nharmonious construction would have to apply in such cases.\n<\/p>\n
     For these\treasons, we  overrule the second preliminary
\nobjection taken by the appellant.\n<\/p>\n
     Lastly, it\t was argued that apart from the Rent Act, s.
\n19 of  the Slum\t Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1956
\n(hereinafter referred  to as  the ‘Slums  Act’), which\talso
\nwould have to be construed as a Special Act applying only to
\nsuch places  which are\tdeclared to  be slums under the Act,
\nwould override the provisions of both the
\n506<\/span>
\nRent Act  and the  Premises Act. This argument appears to us
\nto be  without substance.  The Slums  Act was  passed as far
\nback as\t 1956 and  the Premises\t Act was  subsequent to\t the
\nSlums Act  and would, therefore, prevail over the Slums Act.
\nRelevant portion  of s. 19 of the Slums Act may be extracted
\nthus:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “19. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any
\n     other law for the time being in force, no person shall,
\n     except with  the previous\tpermission in writing of the
\n     competent authority,-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (a) institute,  after the commencement of the Slum
\n     Areas (Improvement\t and Clearance)\t Amendment Act, 1964
\n     any suit  or proceeding  for obtaining  any  decree  or
\n     order for the eviction of a tenant from any building or
\n     land in a slum area;”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     A perusal\tof s. 19 of the Slums Act clearly shows that
\nit is  in  direct  conflict  with  the\tPremises  Act  which
\nexpressly provides  for the  forum for\tevicting persons  in
\nunauthorised occupation\t of premises  which fell  in s. 2 of
\nthe Premises  Act. The\tPremises Act being subsequent to the
\nSlums Act, as amended in 1964, and again being a special Act
\nhaving a  very limited sphere, must necessarily override the
\nSlums Act  on  the  same  lines\t of  reasoning\tas  we\thave
\nindicated in  the case\tof the\tRent Act. For these reasons,
\ntherefore, the\tlast contention\t put forward  by the counsel
\nfor the appellant is also overruled. The High Court had also
\noverruled all  these preliminary  objections more or less on
\nthe same reasons as given by us though not in such details.\n<\/p>\n
     It is,  however, not  necessary for  us to\t remand\t the
\nmatter to the trial court for decision of the case on merits
\nbecause the  Solicitor General\thaving agreed  to  give\t two
\nyears’ time  to the  appellant to  vacate  the\tpremises  on
\nfiling the usual undertaking, the appellant does not want to
\ncontest the  proceedings before\t the Estate officer, LIC and
\nhas undertaken to give vacant and peaceful possession to the
\nrespondent on August 1, 1982. Meanwhile, the appellant shall
\nkeep on paying the usual rent. The appellant shall also file
\nan undertaking\taccompanied by\tan affidavit  to the  effect
\nthat it\t shall hand  over vacant  and peaceful possession to
\nthe respondent\ton or  before August  1, 1982  and-shall not
\ninduct any  tenant on the premises. The undertaking shall be
\nfiled within  three weeks  from today. The subject matter of
\nthe appeal is accordingly disposed of finally.\n<\/p>\n
N.V.K.\t\t\t\t\t  Appeal dismissed.\n507<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Jain Ink Manufacturing Company vs Life Insurance Corporation Of … on 22 August, 1980 Equivalent citations: 1981 AIR 670, 1981 SCR (1) 498 Author: S M Fazalali Bench: Fazalali, Syed Murtaza PETITIONER: JAIN INK MANUFACTURING COMPANY Vs. RESPONDENT: LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA & ANR. DATE OF JUDGMENT22\/08\/1980 BENCH: FAZALALI, SYED […]<\/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-5452","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nJain Ink Manufacturing Company vs Life Insurance Corporation Of ... on 22 August, 1980 - 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\/jain-ink-manufacturing-company-vs-life-insurance-corporation-of-on-22-august-1980\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Jain Ink Manufacturing Company vs Life Insurance Corporation Of ... on 22 August, 1980 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jain-ink-manufacturing-company-vs-life-insurance-corporation-of-on-22-august-1980\" \/>\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=\"1980-08-21T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-01-21T04:35:51+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=\"20 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jain-ink-manufacturing-company-vs-life-insurance-corporation-of-on-22-august-1980#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jain-ink-manufacturing-company-vs-life-insurance-corporation-of-on-22-august-1980\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Jain Ink Manufacturing Company vs Life Insurance Corporation Of … on 22 August, 1980\",\"datePublished\":\"1980-08-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-01-21T04:35:51+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jain-ink-manufacturing-company-vs-life-insurance-corporation-of-on-22-august-1980\"},\"wordCount\":3051,\"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\\\/jain-ink-manufacturing-company-vs-life-insurance-corporation-of-on-22-august-1980#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jain-ink-manufacturing-company-vs-life-insurance-corporation-of-on-22-august-1980\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jain-ink-manufacturing-company-vs-life-insurance-corporation-of-on-22-august-1980\",\"name\":\"Jain Ink Manufacturing Company vs Life Insurance Corporation Of ... on 22 August, 1980 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1980-08-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-01-21T04:35:51+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jain-ink-manufacturing-company-vs-life-insurance-corporation-of-on-22-august-1980#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jain-ink-manufacturing-company-vs-life-insurance-corporation-of-on-22-august-1980\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jain-ink-manufacturing-company-vs-life-insurance-corporation-of-on-22-august-1980#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Jain Ink Manufacturing Company vs Life Insurance Corporation Of … on 22 August, 1980\"}]},{\"@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":"Jain Ink Manufacturing Company vs Life Insurance Corporation Of ... on 22 August, 1980 - 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\/jain-ink-manufacturing-company-vs-life-insurance-corporation-of-on-22-august-1980","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Jain Ink Manufacturing Company vs Life Insurance Corporation Of ... on 22 August, 1980 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jain-ink-manufacturing-company-vs-life-insurance-corporation-of-on-22-august-1980","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1980-08-21T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-01-21T04:35:51+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":"20 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jain-ink-manufacturing-company-vs-life-insurance-corporation-of-on-22-august-1980#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jain-ink-manufacturing-company-vs-life-insurance-corporation-of-on-22-august-1980"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Jain Ink Manufacturing Company vs Life Insurance Corporation Of … on 22 August, 1980","datePublished":"1980-08-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-01-21T04:35:51+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jain-ink-manufacturing-company-vs-life-insurance-corporation-of-on-22-august-1980"},"wordCount":3051,"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\/jain-ink-manufacturing-company-vs-life-insurance-corporation-of-on-22-august-1980#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jain-ink-manufacturing-company-vs-life-insurance-corporation-of-on-22-august-1980","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jain-ink-manufacturing-company-vs-life-insurance-corporation-of-on-22-august-1980","name":"Jain Ink Manufacturing Company vs Life Insurance Corporation Of ... on 22 August, 1980 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1980-08-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-01-21T04:35:51+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jain-ink-manufacturing-company-vs-life-insurance-corporation-of-on-22-august-1980#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jain-ink-manufacturing-company-vs-life-insurance-corporation-of-on-22-august-1980"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jain-ink-manufacturing-company-vs-life-insurance-corporation-of-on-22-august-1980#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Jain Ink Manufacturing Company vs Life Insurance Corporation Of … on 22 August, 1980"}]},{"@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\/5452","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=5452"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5452\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5452"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=5452"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=5452"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}