{"id":60083,"date":"1967-07-18T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1967-07-17T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-m-lall-dead-by-l-rs-vs-dunlop-rubber-co-ltd-ors-on-18-july-1967"},"modified":"2017-05-31T13:58:13","modified_gmt":"2017-05-31T08:28:13","slug":"b-m-lall-dead-by-l-rs-vs-dunlop-rubber-co-ltd-ors-on-18-july-1967","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-m-lall-dead-by-l-rs-vs-dunlop-rubber-co-ltd-ors-on-18-july-1967","title":{"rendered":"B.M. Lall (Dead) By L. Rs vs Dunlop Rubber & Co. Ltd. & Ors on 18 July, 1967"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
B.M. Lall (Dead) By L. Rs vs Dunlop Rubber & Co. Ltd. & Ors on 18 July, 1967<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1968 AIR 175, \t\t 1968 SCR (1)\t 23<\/div>\n
Author: R Bachawat<\/div>\n
Bench: Bachawat, R.S.Shelat, J.M.Bhargava, Vishishtha<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nB.   M. LALL (DEAD) BY L. RS.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nDUNLOP RUBBER & CO.  LTD. & ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n18\/07\/1967\n\nBENCH:\nBACHAWAT, R.S.\nBENCH:\nBACHAWAT, R.S.\nSHELAT, J.M.\nBHARGAVA, VISHISHTHA\n\nCITATION:\n 1968 AIR  175\t\t  1968 SCR  (1)\t 23\n CITATOR INFO :\n F\t    1987 SC 117\t (37,60)\n R\t    1988 SC1845\t (13)\n RF\t    1989 SC1141\t (17)\n\n\nACT:\nWest Bengal Premises Tenancy Act (XII of 1956)-s. 13(1) (f)-\nLimited Company buying premises for housing officers-Whether\nofficer's  occupation  that  of\t tenant\t or   'licensee'-and\nwhether Company's 'Own occupation'.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nThe respondent limited companies purchased certain  premises\nin  Calcutta  for  the\tpurpose\t of  providing\t residential\naccommodation  for  their  staff.   They  instituted   suits\nagainst the appellants for the recovery of possession of two\nflats  on the ground that as these flats were  required\t for\nhousing\t their officers, they were reasonably  required\t for\nthe  occupation of the respondents within the meaning of  s.\n13(1) (f) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956.\nThe  Trial  Court  dismissed the suits but  the\t High  Court\nallowed\t an appeal and held that a limited company can be  a\nlandlord  within  the  meaning\tof  s.\t13(1)  (f)  and\t can\nreasonably require the premises for its own occupation;\t and\nthat  where there are several landlords, the requirement  of\nthe  premises by the landlords for the occupation of one  or\nmore of them is sufficient to bring the case within s. 13(1)\n(f).   In  the\tappeal before the  Supreme  Court  the\tonly\nquestion  for determination was whether on the\tconstruction\nof  the\t terms\tof an agreement which  was  normally  signed\nbetween\t each  of the respondents and any  officer  who\t was\nallotted  a flat, the officer occupied the flat as a  tenant\nor  a licensee, and therefore whether the officer's  occupa-\ntion  would  be\t the company's\town  occupation\t within\t the\nmeaning of clause (f).\nHeld:Dismissing the appeal: The High Court nightly held\nthat  the respondent reasonably required the flats  for\t the\nsecond respondent company's own occupation through  officers\nholding flats on its behalf as licensees. [29B]\nUnder the standard form of agreement, the occupation of\t the\nofficer\t ceased on the termination of his  employment,\tupon\nhis death, or on his transfer and the company was at liberty\nto allot him any other flat or to assign the premises to any\nother employee or other person during his absence.  In\tview\nof  these  and its other terms the agreement operated  as  a\nlicense and not as a tenancy.  It created no interest in the\nland  and gave only a personal privilege or license  to\t the\nservant\t to occupy the premises for the greater\t convenience\nof his work. [28F-H]\nUnder s. 105 of the Transfer of Property Act, a lease is the\ntransfer  of a right to enjoy the premises whereas under  s.\n52  of the Indian Easements Act a license is a privilege  to\ndo  something  on  the premises\t which\totherwise  would  be\nunlawful.   The\t transaction  is a lease  if  it  grants  an\ninterest in the land; it is a license if it gives a personal\nprivilege with no interest in the land. [27E-F]\nErrington  v. Errington and Woods, [1952] 1 K. B. 290,\t298:\nAssociated  Hotels  of India Ltd. v. R.\t N.  Kapoor.<\/a>  [1960]\nS.C.R.\t368; 3815.  Addiscombe Garden Estates Ltd. and\tAnr,\nV. Crabe and Ors. [1958] 1 Q.B. 513, 525; referred to.\n24\nA service occupation is a particular kind of license whereby\na servant is required to live in the premises for the better\nperformance of his duties.  Now it is also settled law\tthat\na servant may be a licensee though he may not be  in-service\noccupation. [27H]\nNippon Menkwa Kalmshiki v. F. Portlock, A.1.R. 1922 Bom. 70;\nand  Torbett v. Faulkner, [1952] 2 T.L.R. 659, 560; referred\nto.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CIVIL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeals Nos.  2253\t and
\n2254 of 1966.\n<\/p>\n
Appeals\t from the judgment and decree dated July 5, 1965  of
\nthe  Calcutta  High Court in Appeals from  Original  Decrees
\nNos. 490  and 489 of 1960 respectively.\n<\/p>\n
Sarjoo\tPrasad and R. Ganapathy Iyer, for the appellant\t (in
\nC.   A. No. 2253 of 1966).\n<\/p>\n
Devaprasad  Chaudhury and Sukumar Ghove, for  the  appellant
\n(In C. A. No. 2254 of 1966).\n<\/p>\n
A.K. Sen, S. K. Gambhir and D. N. Gupta, for the  respon-
\ndents (in both the appeals).\n<\/p>\n
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\nBachawat,  J.The  respondents are limited  companies  having
\ntheir  head offices in Calcutta.  On May 15, 1953,  the\t two
\nCompanies  jointly  purchased the premises known  as  King’s
\nCourt’\tat  No.\t 46B Chowringhee  Road,\t Calcutta,  for\t the
\npurpose\t of  providing residential accommodation  for  their
\nstaff.\tThey instituted a suit against one B. M. Lall, since
\ndeceased, predecessor of the appellants in C. A. No. 2253\/66
\nfor  recovery of possession of flat No. 8 in  the  aforesaid
\npremises  in  his occupation as a tenant, and  another\tsuit
\nagainst\t the appellant in C. A. No. 2254\/66 for recovery  of
\npossession  of flat No. 9 in his occupation as a tenant,  on
\nthe  ground that they reasonably required the flats for\t the
\noccupation of their staff.  By Sec. 13(1) of the West Bengal
\nPremises  Tenancy Act, 1956, (West Bengal Act XII of  1956),
\nthe  tenants  are protected from eviction except on  one  or
\nmore  of  the  grounds specified in  the  sub-section.\t The
\ngrounds mentioned in clause (f) of S. 13(1) are: –\n<\/p>\n
\t      “Where the premises are reasonably required by
\n\t      the  landlord either for purposes of  building
\n\t      or   re-building\t or   for   making   thereto
\n\t      substantial  additions or alterations  or\t for
\n\t      his  own occupation if he is the owner or\t for
\n\t      the occupation of any person for whose benefit
\n\t      the premises are held;”……..\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The respondents claim that they reasonably require the flats
\nfor  their  own occupation.  The trial court  dismissed\t the
\nsuits.\tFrom these decrees, the respondents filed appeals in
\nthe  High Court at Calcutta.  The High Court set  aside\t the
\ndecrees\t passed\t by the trial court and decreed\t the  suits.
\nThe  present  appeals  have been  filed\t under\tcertificates
\ngranted by the High Court.\n<\/p>\n
25<\/span><\/p>\n
The  High  Court held that (1) a limited company  can  be  a
\nlandlord   within  the\tmeaning\t of  s.\t 13(1)(f)  and\t can
\nreasonably require the premises for its own occupation,\t and
\n(2)  where there are several landlords, the  requirement  of
\nthe  premises by the landlords for the occupation of one  or
\nmore  of  them is sufficient to bring the case\twithin\tSec.
\n13(1)(f).  These findings are not challenged in\t this Court.
\nBefore\tus it is also conceded by all the appearing  parties
\nthat  the respondents are entitled to a decree for  recovery
\nof possession of the two flats under sec. 13(1)(f), if\tthey
\nestablish  that\t they reasonably require the flats  for\t the
\noccupation of respondent No. 2, Guest Keen and Williams Ltd.
\nonly.\n<\/p>\n
The  two  courts concurrently found that  respondent  No.  2
\nreasonably  requires  the flats for the\t occupation  of\t its
\nstaff.\t The Company is under an obligation to provide\tfree
\nresidential  accommodation  for its officers  in  properties
\neither rented or owned by it. In view of the acute  scarcity
\nof  accommodation  in the city, it is not possible  to\tfind
\nother convenient flats for officers who were transferred  to
\nthe  city from other stations.\tSuitable provision  for\t the
\naccommodation  of  officers visiting Calcutta on tour  is  a
\nmatter\tof  necessity.\t The sole question  is\twhether\t the
\noccupation by its staff officers would be the company’s\t own
\noccupation.   The point of dispute on which the\t two  courts
\ndiffered  is whether the officer to whom the flat  would  be
\nallotted  would occupy it as a tenant or as a licensee.\t  It
\nis common case before us that if he is a licensee his  occu-
\npation would be on behalf of the company and its requirement
\nwould  be for its own occupation.  On the other hand, if  he
\nis  a tenant his occupation would be on his own account\t and
\nthe   company’s\t requirement  would  not  be  for  its\t own
\noccupation.   It  appears that the  officers  provided\twith
\naccommodation  by  the\tCompany\t are  required\tto   execute
\nagreements in a standard form.\tThe terms and conditions  of
\nthe agreement are as follows: –\n<\/p>\n
\t      1 .   The Licensee whilst in the employment of
\n\t      the Company at
\n\t      Calcutta\tand  for  the sole  purpose  of\t the
\n\t      Licensee\tbeing more conveniently situated  in
\n\t      such  employment\tis hereby permitted  by\t the
\n\t      Company  to  occupy as a Licensee\t during\t the
\n\t      term  of his employment at Calcutta  Flat\t No.
\n\t      25,   situated in the Company’s property known
\n\t      as  Kings Court, Calcutta, or such other\tflat
\n\t      as may be allotted to the Licensee   at\t the
\n\t      company’s discretion (hereinafter referred  to
\n\t      as  “the said permises”) subject to the  terms
\n\t      and conditions hereinafter contained.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      2.    In the event of the Company deciding  to
\n\t      levy License fees and the Company reserves the
\n\t      right  to\t do  so without\t prior\tnotice,\t the
\n\t      Licensee\tshall pay to the Company each  month
\n\t      such  License fees which may be varied by\t the
\n\t      ‘Company\tfrom time to time at its  discretion
\n\t      and  the Company shall be entitled  to  deduct
\n\t      such  License fees from the emoluments  or  to
\n\t      become due to the Licensee from Company.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      26<\/span><\/p>\n
\t      3.    The\t occupation of the said premises  by
\n\t      the Licensee is a condition of his  employment
\n\t      at Calcutta with the company and such right of
\n\t      occupation  shall\t forthwith  cease  upon\t his
\n\t      employment being terminated by the company  or
\n\t      on  his  leaving\tsuch employment\t or  on\t his
\n\t      transfer\taway from Calcutta or on  his  death
\n\t      whichever\t is  earlier.  Notice given  by\t the
\n\t      Company  to  the Licensee\t of  termination  of
\n\t      employment  or of transfer away from  Calcutta
\n\t      shall  be\t deemed to be sufficient  notice  of
\n\t      revocation of the licence.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      4.    The\t  Company  shall  be   entitled\t  to
\n\t      determine forthwith the licence hereby granted
\n\t      if the licensee shall fail to comply with\t any
\n\t      of  the terms and conditions herein  contained
\n\t      and  on  his  part to  be\t observed  and\tnon-
\n\t      compliance  with\tthe  terms  and\t  conditions
\n\t      herein contained may be deemed by the  company
\n\t      to be misconduct.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      5.    These presents shall not or shall not be
\n\t      deemed to create any relationship of  landlord
\n\t      and   tenant  between  the  company  and\t the
\n\t      licensee in respect of the said premises.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      6.    The\t company shall pay all\tpresent\t and
\n\t      future revenue and municipal taxes payable  in
\n\t      respect of the said premises and keep the said
\n\t      premises\tin repair during the continuance  of
\n\t      these presents.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      Conditions   to  be  complied  with   by\t the
\n\t      licensee:-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      1.    The\t Licensee  shall  pay  the  cost  of
\n\t      electricity  and gas consumed within the\tsaid
\n\t      premises and the company may at its discretion
\n\t      deduct such charges from the emoluments due or
\n\t      to  become  due  to  the\tLicensee  from\t the
\n\t      company.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      2.    The\t Licensee shall not cause or  permit
\n\t      to be cause any disturbance or nuisance in  or
\n\t      in the vicinity of the said premises.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      3.    No structure or alteration temporary  or
\n\t      permanent,  other than common ornaments  shall
\n\t      be  erected,  fixed  or  carried\tout  by\t the
\n\t      Licensee\tin  the\t said  premises\t or   garden
\n\t      without  prior  written  permission  from\t the
\n\t      company.\tThe Licensee shall not do or  permit
\n\t      to  be  done  any act or\tthing  which  causes
\n\t      damage  or  is liable to cause damage  to\t the
\n\t      said  premises.  The cost of rectification  of
\n\t      such damage will be recoverable in  accordance
\n\t      with condition (1).\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      4.    Alterations\t of  or\t extensions  to\t the
\n\t      installed\t electrical  circuit  are   strictly
\n\t      prohibited.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      5.    No notice advertisement or placard other
\n\t      than  the\t Licensee’s own name, which  may  be
\n\t      fixed  to the main door of the said  premises,
\n\t      shall be fixed or permitted to be fixed to any
\n\t      portion of the said premises.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      27<\/span><\/p>\n
\t      6.    The said premises shall be used entirely
\n\t      as  a dwelling place and no business or  trade
\n\t      shall  be carried out on the said premises  or
\n\t      any   part  thereof  without   prior   written
\n\t      permission from the company.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      7.    The Licensee will not permit any persons
\n\t      other than his own personal servants to occupy
\n\t      the servants’ quarters allotted to him by\t the
\n\t      company\tand  will  not\tpermit\tthe   garage
\n\t      allotted to him by the company to be used\t for
\n\t      residential purpose.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      8.    The\t Licensee  shall  not  take  in\t any
\n\t      paying guest without prior written  permission
\n\t      from the company and such permission shall  be
\n\t      deemed to have been withdrawn when the  paying
\n\t      guest ceases to reside.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      9.    The Licensee shall not let or part\twith
\n\t      possession  of  the whole or any part  of\t the
\n\t      said premises to any person, firm or  company.
\n\t      During  periods  when the Licensee  is  absent
\n\t      from  Calcutta  the  Company  may\t assign\t the
\n\t      premises\tto  any other employee\tor  suitable
\n\t      person at its sole discretion.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The question is whether the occupier under this agreement
\nis a tenant or a licensee.  The distinction between a  lease
\nand  a license is well known.  Sec. 105 of the\tTransfer  of
\nProperty  Act  defines\ta  lease.  Sec.\t 52  of\t the  Indian
\nEasements  Act\tdefines\t a  license. A\tlease……  is\t the
\ntransfer of a right to enjoy the premises; whereas a license
\nis  a  privilege  to  do something  on\tthe  premises  which
\notherwise  would be unlawful.  If the agreement is in  writ-
\ning,  it  is  a question of construction  of  the  agreement
\nhaving\tregard\tto  its\t terms and  where  its\tlanguage  is
\nambiguous,   having   regard   to  its\t object,   and\t the
\ncircumstances under which it was executed whether the rights
\nof  the occupier are those of a lessee or a licen  see.\t The
\ntransaction  is\t a lease, if it grants an  interest  in\t the
\nland; it is a license if it gives a personal privilege\twith
\nno  interest in the land.  The question is not of words\t but
\nof  substance and the label which the parties choose to\t put
\nupon the transaction, though relevant, is not decisive.\t The
\ntest of exclusive possession is not decisive, see  Errington
\nv.  Errington and Woods,(1) Associated Hotels of India\tLtd.
\nv. R. N. Kapoor,<\/a>(2) though it is a very important indication
\nin  favour of tenancy.\tSee Addiscombe Garden  Estates\tLtd.
\nand  Anr. v. Crabbe and Ors.(3). A servant in occupation  of
\npremises  belonging  to\t his master may be  a  tenant  or  a
\nlicensee,  see\tHalsbury’s Laws of England,  Third  Edition,
\nVol.  23,  art.\t 990. p. 411.  A  service  occupation  is  a
\nparticular kind of license whereby a servant is required  to
\nlive  in  the premises for  the better\tperformance  of\t his
\nduties.\t  Formerly,  the  occupation  of  the  servant\t was
\nregarded as a tenancy unless it was a service occu-
\n(1)[1952] 1 K.B. 290, 298.\n<\/p>\n
(2) [1260] 368, 381-5.\n<\/p>\n
(3) [1958] 1 Q.B. 513,525.\n<\/p>\n
28<\/span><\/p>\n
pation, see Nippon Menkwa Kalmshiki v. F. Portlock(1).\t Now
\nit is settled law that a servant may be a licensee though he
\nmay not be in service occupation.  In Torbett v. Faulkner(2)
\nDenning, L. J. said:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “A  service occupation is, in truth, only\t one
\n\t      form  of licence.\t It is a particular kind  of
\n\t      licence whereby a servant is required to\tlive
\n\t      in  the  house in order the better to  do\t his
\n\t      work.   But it is now settled that  there\t are
\n\t      other  kinds  of licence which a\tservant\t may
\n\t      have.  A servant may in some circumstances  be
\n\t      a. licensee even though he is not required  to
\n\t      live in the house, but is only permitted to do
\n\t      so because of its convenience for his work-see
\n\t      Ford  v.\tLangford 1(1949) 65 The\t Times\tL.R.
\n\t      1381, per Lord Justice Asquith, and Webb, Ltd.
\n\t      v.  Webb\t(unreported, October  24,  1951)-and
\n\t      even   though  he\t pays  the   rates,   Gorham
\n\t      Contractors, Ltd. v. Field (unreported,  March
\n\t      26,  1952), and even though he  has  exclusive
\n\t      possession,  Cobb v. Lane (1952) 1  The  Times
\n\t      L.R. 1037)”.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      The Lord Justice then continued:
\n\t      “If a servant is given a personal privilege to
\n\t      stay in a house for the greater convenience of
\n\t      his work, and it is treated as part and parcel
\n\t      of  his remuneration, then he is\ta  licensee,
\n\t      even  though the value of the house  is  quan-
\n\t      tified  in  money;  but  if  he  is  given  an
\n\t      interest\tin the land, separate  and  distinct
\n\t      from  his\t contract  of  service,\t at  a\t sum
\n\t      properly to be regarded as a, rent, then he is
\n\t      a\t tenant, and none the less a tenant  because
\n\t      he is also a servant.  The distinction depends
\n\t      on  the truth of the relationship and  not  on
\n\t      the label which the-parties choose to put upon
\n\t      it:  see Facchini v. Bryson-(1952 ) The  Times
\n\t      L.R. 1386).”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The  last  observation covers the present case.\t  Under\t the
\nstandard  form\tof  agreement  of  respondent  No.  2,\t the
\noccupation of the officer ceases not only on the termination
\nof his employment but also on his transfer from Calcutta and
\non his death.  The company is at liberty to allot any  other
\nflat to the officer.  During the absence of the servant from
\nCalcutta,  the company is at liberty to assign the  premises
\nto any other employee or other person.\tThe accommodation is
\nfree,  but  the Company reserves the right to  levy  license
\nfees.\tAll the terms of the agreement are  consistent\twith
\nthe  expressed\tintention that the officer is  permitted  to
\noccupy\tthe flat as a licensee and nothing in the  agreement
\nshall  be deemed to create the relationship of landlord\t and
\ntenant.\t The agreement on its true construction read in\t the
\nlight of the surrounding circumstances operates as a license
\nand  not as a tenancy.\tIt creates no interest in the  land.
\nIt gives only a personal privilege or license
\n(1)A.I.R. 1922 Botm. 70.\t(2) [1952]2 T.L.R. 659,660,
\n 29<\/span>
\nof  the\t servant  to occupy the\t premises  for\tthe  greater
\nconvenience of his work.\n<\/p>\n
The High Court rightly held that the respondents  reasonably
\nrequire\t the  flats for respondent No.\t2’s  own  occupation
\nthrough\t officers  holding  the\t flats\ton  its\t behalf\t  as
\nlicensee.   If so, it is conceded that it is  not  necessary
\nfor the respondents to establish the reasonable\t requirement
\nby  respondent No. 1 also for its own Occupation.  The\tHigh
\nCourt decided this issue also in favour of the\trespondents.
\nAs  the\t decision  on this issue is not\t necessary  for\t the
\ndisposal  of this appeal, we express no opinion on it.\t The
\nHigh Court rightly decreed the suits.\n<\/p>\n
In the result, the appeals are dismissed.  There will be  no
\norder is to costs.\n<\/p>\n
R.K.P.S.\t\t\t\t\t     Appeals\ndismissed.\n30<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India B.M. Lall (Dead) By L. Rs vs Dunlop Rubber & Co. Ltd. & Ors on 18 July, 1967 Equivalent citations: 1968 AIR 175, 1968 SCR (1) 23 Author: R Bachawat Bench: Bachawat, R.S.Shelat, J.M.Bhargava, Vishishtha PETITIONER: B. M. LALL (DEAD) BY L. RS. Vs. RESPONDENT: DUNLOP RUBBER & CO. LTD. & […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-60083","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nB.M. Lall (Dead) By L. Rs vs Dunlop Rubber & Co. Ltd. & Ors on 18 July, 1967 - 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\/b-m-lall-dead-by-l-rs-vs-dunlop-rubber-co-ltd-ors-on-18-july-1967\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"B.M. Lall (Dead) By L. Rs vs Dunlop Rubber & Co. Ltd. & Ors on 18 July, 1967 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-m-lall-dead-by-l-rs-vs-dunlop-rubber-co-ltd-ors-on-18-july-1967\" \/>\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=\"1967-07-17T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-05-31T08:28:13+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=\"15 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/b-m-lall-dead-by-l-rs-vs-dunlop-rubber-co-ltd-ors-on-18-july-1967#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/b-m-lall-dead-by-l-rs-vs-dunlop-rubber-co-ltd-ors-on-18-july-1967\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"B.M. Lall (Dead) By L. Rs vs Dunlop Rubber & Co. Ltd. & Ors on 18 July, 1967\",\"datePublished\":\"1967-07-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-05-31T08:28:13+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/b-m-lall-dead-by-l-rs-vs-dunlop-rubber-co-ltd-ors-on-18-july-1967\"},\"wordCount\":2372,\"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\\\/b-m-lall-dead-by-l-rs-vs-dunlop-rubber-co-ltd-ors-on-18-july-1967#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/b-m-lall-dead-by-l-rs-vs-dunlop-rubber-co-ltd-ors-on-18-july-1967\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/b-m-lall-dead-by-l-rs-vs-dunlop-rubber-co-ltd-ors-on-18-july-1967\",\"name\":\"B.M. Lall (Dead) By L. Rs vs Dunlop Rubber & Co. Ltd. & Ors on 18 July, 1967 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1967-07-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-05-31T08:28:13+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/b-m-lall-dead-by-l-rs-vs-dunlop-rubber-co-ltd-ors-on-18-july-1967#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/b-m-lall-dead-by-l-rs-vs-dunlop-rubber-co-ltd-ors-on-18-july-1967\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/b-m-lall-dead-by-l-rs-vs-dunlop-rubber-co-ltd-ors-on-18-july-1967#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"B.M. Lall (Dead) By L. Rs vs Dunlop Rubber & Co. Ltd. & Ors on 18 July, 1967\"}]},{\"@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":"B.M. Lall (Dead) By L. Rs vs Dunlop Rubber & Co. Ltd. & Ors on 18 July, 1967 - 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\/b-m-lall-dead-by-l-rs-vs-dunlop-rubber-co-ltd-ors-on-18-july-1967","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"B.M. Lall (Dead) By L. Rs vs Dunlop Rubber & Co. Ltd. & Ors on 18 July, 1967 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-m-lall-dead-by-l-rs-vs-dunlop-rubber-co-ltd-ors-on-18-july-1967","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1967-07-17T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-05-31T08:28:13+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":"15 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-m-lall-dead-by-l-rs-vs-dunlop-rubber-co-ltd-ors-on-18-july-1967#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-m-lall-dead-by-l-rs-vs-dunlop-rubber-co-ltd-ors-on-18-july-1967"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"B.M. Lall (Dead) By L. Rs vs Dunlop Rubber & Co. Ltd. & Ors on 18 July, 1967","datePublished":"1967-07-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-05-31T08:28:13+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-m-lall-dead-by-l-rs-vs-dunlop-rubber-co-ltd-ors-on-18-july-1967"},"wordCount":2372,"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\/b-m-lall-dead-by-l-rs-vs-dunlop-rubber-co-ltd-ors-on-18-july-1967#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-m-lall-dead-by-l-rs-vs-dunlop-rubber-co-ltd-ors-on-18-july-1967","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-m-lall-dead-by-l-rs-vs-dunlop-rubber-co-ltd-ors-on-18-july-1967","name":"B.M. Lall (Dead) By L. Rs vs Dunlop Rubber & Co. Ltd. & Ors on 18 July, 1967 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1967-07-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-05-31T08:28:13+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-m-lall-dead-by-l-rs-vs-dunlop-rubber-co-ltd-ors-on-18-july-1967#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-m-lall-dead-by-l-rs-vs-dunlop-rubber-co-ltd-ors-on-18-july-1967"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-m-lall-dead-by-l-rs-vs-dunlop-rubber-co-ltd-ors-on-18-july-1967#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"B.M. Lall (Dead) By L. Rs vs Dunlop Rubber & Co. Ltd. & Ors on 18 July, 1967"}]},{"@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\/60083","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=60083"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/60083\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=60083"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=60083"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=60083"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}