{"id":57160,"date":"2009-07-16T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-07-15T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sulaiha-beevi-vs-k-p-renjith-on-16-july-2009"},"modified":"2016-01-13T23:32:58","modified_gmt":"2016-01-13T18:02:58","slug":"sulaiha-beevi-vs-k-p-renjith-on-16-july-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sulaiha-beevi-vs-k-p-renjith-on-16-july-2009","title":{"rendered":"Sulaiha Beevi vs K.P.Renjith on 16 July, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Sulaiha Beevi vs K.P.Renjith on 16 July, 2009<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nRCRev..No. 60 of 2009()\n\n\n1. SULAIHA BEEVI W\/O. MUHAMMED SALI,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n2. FAROOK S\/O. MUHAMMED SALI,\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. K.P.RENJITH S\/O. PADMANABHA PILLAI,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.G.SUDHEER\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.RAM MOHAN.G.\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice P.Q.BARKATH ALI\n\n Dated :16\/07\/2009\n\n O R D E R\n           PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ.\n                        - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n                               R.C.R.No.60 OF 2009\n                    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n                      Dated this the 16th day of July, 2009\n\n                                      ORDER\n<\/pre>\n
Pius.C.Kuriakose, J.\n<\/p>\n
       The tenant is in revision and he impugns the order of eviction<\/p>\n
concurrently passed against him on the ground under Clause (iii) of<\/p>\n
Sub Section 4 of Section 11 of Act 2 of 1965. The tenant denied the<\/p>\n
title of the landlord through his objections. According to him, the land<\/p>\n
was originally government purampoke and the same was assigned to<\/p>\n
his father Muhammed Sali.                 He contended that it is his father<\/p>\n
Mohammed Sali who put up the building and he is in possession of the<\/p>\n
building as owner.        Thus he denied not only the landlord-tenant<\/p>\n
relationship between the parties, but also claimed that he is having<\/p>\n
propriety title over the land and the building.\n<\/p>\n
       2.    The Rent Control Court formulated a point as to whether<\/p>\n
the denial of the landlord’s title by the tenant is bonafide. The Rent<\/p>\n
Control Court enquired into the merits of the grounds in the RCP also.<\/p>\n
The other grounds for eviction invoked were arrears of rent, bonafide<\/p>\n
RCR.No.60\/09                         2<\/span><\/p>\n
own occupation and negligent user of the building.         The evidence<\/p>\n
before the reference court consisted of Exts.A1 to A26 and the oral<\/p>\n
testimonies of PW1 and PW2 on the side of the landlord while the<\/p>\n
same on the side of the tenant ( the revision petitioner) consisted of<\/p>\n
Exts.B1 to B10 and the oral evidence of CPW1. On considering the<\/p>\n
preliminary point, the rent control court concluded that the denial of the<\/p>\n
landlord’s title by the tenant is not bonafide. Considering the various<\/p>\n
grounds raised that court found that the landlord is entitled to get an<\/p>\n
order of eviction under Clause (iii) of Sub Section (4) of Section 11.<\/p>\n
As regards this ground, it was found that landlord’s case that the tenant<\/p>\n
is having possession of another building reasonably sufficient for his<\/p>\n
requirements was not specifically denied by the tenant. The appellate<\/p>\n
authority would confirm all the findings of the rent control court and<\/p>\n
ordered eviction under Section 11(4)(iii) only.    In fact there was no<\/p>\n
appeal by the landlord against the denial of eviction on the other<\/p>\n
grounds sought for.\n<\/p>\n
     3.     In this revision, the respondent in the RCP impugns not<\/p>\n
only the decision of the courts below that the denial of the landlord’s<\/p>\n
RCR.No.60\/09                         3<\/span><\/p>\n
title is not bonafide, but also the order of eviction passed under clause<\/p>\n
(iii) of Sub Section (4) of Section 11.\n<\/p>\n
       4.    We have heard the submissions of Sri.G.Sudheer, learned<\/p>\n
counsel for the revision petitioners and those of Sri.Ram Mohan.G.,<\/p>\n
learned counsel for the respondent. Sri.G.Sudheer gave more thrust to<\/p>\n
the contention that the landlord respondent does not have title over the<\/p>\n
building. Sri.Sudheer took us to the various documents produced by<\/p>\n
the revision petitioners before the courts below. He also drew our<\/p>\n
attention to a few documents produced by the revision petitioners in<\/p>\n
this court. We are not inclined to admit the documents produced by the<\/p>\n
revision petitioners in this court since we find that the rent control<\/p>\n
court had afforded all necessary opportunity to the revision petitioners<\/p>\n
for adducing evidence and the revision petitioners do not have a ground<\/p>\n
that they were deprived of any such opportunity.            In fact, the<\/p>\n
documents produced also in our opinion will not improve the revision<\/p>\n
petitioners’ case. The revision petitioners’ case is that the land was<\/p>\n
originally purampoke and that it was the father of second petitioner<\/p>\n
who put up the building on the basis of permit issued by the local<\/p>\n
RCR.No.60\/09                         4<\/span><\/p>\n
authority.   The Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority<\/p>\n
considered this case in the light of the evidence adduced by the revision<\/p>\n
petitioners and found that the documents produced by the revision<\/p>\n
petitioners do not pertain to the plot upon which the petition schedule<\/p>\n
building is situated. In our view, the question of proprietary title over<\/p>\n
the land upon which the building is constructed does not have much<\/p>\n
relevance in rent control proceedings. In rent control proceedings it is<\/p>\n
the landlord-tenant relationship in respect of the building that is more<\/p>\n
important. If at all title is important , it is the title in respect of the<\/p>\n
building and not in respect of the land upon which it is constructed. It<\/p>\n
is seen that, in the property tax assessment books in the<\/p>\n
Thiruvananthapuram Corporation, the respondent is shown as the<\/p>\n
owner of the building. Section 26 of the Rent Control Act lays down<\/p>\n
that entries contained in the assessment books of the local authority<\/p>\n
shall be accepted by the authorities under the Act as evidence of the<\/p>\n
facts recorded therein.        Thus the assessment book of the<\/p>\n
Thiruvananthapuram Corporation which discloses that the respondent<\/p>\n
is the owner of the building and that the occupation of the revision<\/p>\n
RCR.No.60\/09                          5<\/span><\/p>\n
petitioner is only that of a tenant has considerable probative value. It is<\/p>\n
taking into account this aspect of the matter also, the Rent Control<\/p>\n
Appellate Authority which under the statutory scheme is the final court<\/p>\n
on facts has taken a decision against the revision petitioners.<\/p>\n
      5.    Having regard to the contours of our jurisdiction under<\/p>\n
Section 20 which is revisional, we do not find any warrant for<\/p>\n
interfering with the impugned judgment of the Rent Control Appellate<\/p>\n
Authority confirming the order of the Rent Control Court. We do not<\/p>\n
find any illegality, irregularity or impropriety to the extent of justifying<\/p>\n
invocation of revisional jurisdiction.      As for the order of eviction<\/p>\n
passed under clause (iii) of Section 11(4), as rightly noticed by the<\/p>\n
appellate authority, the landlord’s version that the tenant is in<\/p>\n
possession of another building, the door number of which is mentioned<\/p>\n
in the rent control petition, is not specifically denied in evidence. The<\/p>\n
revision petitioner did not assert in evidence that he does not have<\/p>\n
possession of any other building. The title over the building possessed<\/p>\n
by the tenant is not relevant. What is relevant is only possession . Once<\/p>\n
possession of other building is admitted either expressly or by non<\/p>\n
RCR.No.60\/09                         6<\/span><\/p>\n
traverse or by non-denial in evidence, then it is for the tenant to adduce<\/p>\n
evidence and show that the building is not sufficient for his<\/p>\n
requirements. The Appellate Authority concluded that an order of<\/p>\n
eviction is liable to be passed against the tenant under Section 11(4)<\/p>\n
(iii). In our opinion, the legislative objective underlying Clause (iii) of<\/p>\n
Sub Section (4) of Section 11 is that in a situation where there is acute<\/p>\n
accommodation shortage, the tenants should not be allowed the luxury<\/p>\n
of having more buildings at their disposal than what is necessary for<\/p>\n
their requirements.\n<\/p>\n
      6.    Sri.Sudheer lastly submitted that the land acquisition<\/p>\n
proceedings have now been initiated for acquiring the building which is<\/p>\n
subject matter of the RCR. According to him, notice has been received<\/p>\n
by his client from the land acquisition authority and as per that notice<\/p>\n
entire compensation is to be paid to his client only.         The above<\/p>\n
submission was opposed by Sri.Ram Mohan. According to him, no<\/p>\n
acquisition proceedings have been initiated in respect of the building<\/p>\n
which is subject matter of the RCR or in respect of the land upon which<\/p>\n
the building is constructed. We are not going to settle this issue in this<\/p>\n
RCR.No.60\/09                          7<\/span><\/p>\n
revision petition, since, under this jurisdiction, we are called upon to<\/p>\n
examine only the correctness of the judgment of the Rent Control<\/p>\n
Appellate Authority confirming the order of the Rent Control Court.<\/p>\n
We do not find any warrant for interference with the Appellate<\/p>\n
Authority’s judgment.\n<\/p>\n
      7.      Sri.Sudheer now requested for grant of one year’s time to<\/p>\n
vacate the premises. Sri.Ram Mohan would oppose this request tooth<\/p>\n
and nail. According to Sri.Ram Mohan contract rent at the rate of<\/p>\n
Rs. 4000\/- is in arrears since 1998 onwards. He submitted that even if<\/p>\n
this court is inclined to grant time, it may be on condition that the entire<\/p>\n
arrears of rent alleged by the landlord is paid by the revision<\/p>\n
petitioners. We are not inclined to grant so much of time as sought for<\/p>\n
by Sri.Sudheer. We are not inclined either to impose the condition<\/p>\n
suggested by Sri.Ram Mohan in this case where eviction order sought<\/p>\n
for under Section 11(2)(b) was declined by the authorities on the<\/p>\n
reason that landlord did not prove the rate of rent. At the same time,<\/p>\n
we notice that the building has a carpet area of atleast 800 sq.ft. and it<\/p>\n
is situated in Chalay Bazar in Thiruvananthapuram city. We are sure<\/p>\n
RCR.No.60\/09                         8<\/span><\/p>\n
that if the building is let out today, the rent to be fetched will be much<\/p>\n
more than Rs. 4000 per month. However, we fix occupational charges<\/p>\n
payable by the revision petitioners as condition for being given time<\/p>\n
for surrender at Rs. 3,000\/- per month with effect from August 2009.<\/p>\n
The occupational charges shall be payable on or before the 5th of every<\/p>\n
month commencing from 05\/08\/2009.\n<\/p>\n
      8.     The result of the RCR is as follows :\n<\/p>\n
      The RCR will stand dismissed. There will be a direction to the<\/p>\n
execution court not to order and effect delivery of the petition schedule<\/p>\n
building till 31\/01\/2010 subject to the following conditions ;<\/p>\n
                The revision petitioners shall file an affidavit<\/p>\n
          before the execution court or the Rent Control Court<\/p>\n
          within three weeks from today undertaking to<\/p>\n
          peacefully surrender the petition schedule building to<\/p>\n
          the respondent on or before 30\/01\/2010 and undertaking<\/p>\n
          further through the same affidavit that they will pay<\/p>\n
          occupational charges to the revision petitioner at the rate<\/p>\n
          of Rs.3000\/-     on or before the 5th of every month<\/p>\n
RCR.No.60\/09                      9<\/span><\/p>\n
        commencing from 5th August 2009 till the date of<\/p>\n
        surrender. The revision petitioners will get the benefit<\/p>\n
        of time granted under this order only if they file the<\/p>\n
        affidavit on time.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
              In the event of any default by the revision<\/p>\n
        petitioners in the matter of payment of amount ordered<\/p>\n
        by us, the execution court will be justified in ordering<\/p>\n
        delivery forthwith.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                             PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE
\n                                                     JUDGE<\/p>\n
                                              P.Q.BARKATH ALI
\n                                                       JUDGE<\/p>\n
sv.\n<\/p>\n
RCR.No.60\/09    10<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Sulaiha Beevi vs K.P.Renjith on 16 July, 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM RCRev..No. 60 of 2009() 1. SULAIHA BEEVI W\/O. MUHAMMED SALI, … Petitioner 2. FAROOK S\/O. MUHAMMED SALI, Vs 1. K.P.RENJITH S\/O. PADMANABHA PILLAI, … Respondent For Petitioner :SRI.G.SUDHEER For Respondent :SRI.RAM MOHAN.G. The Hon’ble MR. Justice […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-57160","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nSulaiha Beevi vs K.P.Renjith on 16 July, 2009 - 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\/sulaiha-beevi-vs-k-p-renjith-on-16-july-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Sulaiha Beevi vs K.P.Renjith on 16 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sulaiha-beevi-vs-k-p-renjith-on-16-july-2009\" \/>\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=\"2009-07-15T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-01-13T18:02:58+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=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sulaiha-beevi-vs-k-p-renjith-on-16-july-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sulaiha-beevi-vs-k-p-renjith-on-16-july-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Sulaiha Beevi vs K.P.Renjith on 16 July, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-07-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-01-13T18:02:58+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sulaiha-beevi-vs-k-p-renjith-on-16-july-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1659,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Kerala High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sulaiha-beevi-vs-k-p-renjith-on-16-july-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sulaiha-beevi-vs-k-p-renjith-on-16-july-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sulaiha-beevi-vs-k-p-renjith-on-16-july-2009\",\"name\":\"Sulaiha Beevi vs K.P.Renjith on 16 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-07-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-01-13T18:02:58+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sulaiha-beevi-vs-k-p-renjith-on-16-july-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sulaiha-beevi-vs-k-p-renjith-on-16-july-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sulaiha-beevi-vs-k-p-renjith-on-16-july-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Sulaiha Beevi vs K.P.Renjith on 16 July, 2009\"}]},{\"@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":"Sulaiha Beevi vs K.P.Renjith on 16 July, 2009 - 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\/sulaiha-beevi-vs-k-p-renjith-on-16-july-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Sulaiha Beevi vs K.P.Renjith on 16 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sulaiha-beevi-vs-k-p-renjith-on-16-july-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-07-15T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-01-13T18:02:58+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":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sulaiha-beevi-vs-k-p-renjith-on-16-july-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sulaiha-beevi-vs-k-p-renjith-on-16-july-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Sulaiha Beevi vs K.P.Renjith on 16 July, 2009","datePublished":"2009-07-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-01-13T18:02:58+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sulaiha-beevi-vs-k-p-renjith-on-16-july-2009"},"wordCount":1659,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Kerala High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sulaiha-beevi-vs-k-p-renjith-on-16-july-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sulaiha-beevi-vs-k-p-renjith-on-16-july-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sulaiha-beevi-vs-k-p-renjith-on-16-july-2009","name":"Sulaiha Beevi vs K.P.Renjith on 16 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-07-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-01-13T18:02:58+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sulaiha-beevi-vs-k-p-renjith-on-16-july-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sulaiha-beevi-vs-k-p-renjith-on-16-july-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sulaiha-beevi-vs-k-p-renjith-on-16-july-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Sulaiha Beevi vs K.P.Renjith on 16 July, 2009"}]},{"@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\/57160","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=57160"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/57160\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=57160"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=57160"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=57160"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}