{"id":61164,"date":"2009-11-11T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-11-10T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/het-ram-vs-virbhan-on-11-november-2009"},"modified":"2017-07-17T17:05:14","modified_gmt":"2017-07-17T11:35:14","slug":"het-ram-vs-virbhan-on-11-november-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/het-ram-vs-virbhan-on-11-november-2009","title":{"rendered":"Het Ram vs Virbhan on 11 November, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court<\/div>\n
Het Ram vs Virbhan on 11 November, 2009<\/div>\n
Civil Revision No.2003 of 2007                          1\n\nIN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH\n\n\n                                            Civil Revision No.2003 of 2007\n\n                                            Date of Decision:11.11.2009\n\n\nHet Ram\n                                                        .....Petitioner\n\n            Versus\n\n\nVirbhan\n                                                        .....Respondent\n\n\nCORAM:      Hon'ble Mr.Justice Mehinder Singh Sullar.\n\n\nPresent:    Mr.C.B.Goel, Advocate,\n            for the petitioner.\n\n            Mr.Shailendra Jain, Advocate,\n            for the respondent.\n\n            ****\n\nMehinder Singh Sullar, J.\n<\/pre>\n
1.          As strange as it may appear but strictly speaking the tendency<\/p>\n
and frequency of the tenants by retaining the possession of rented<\/p>\n
premises after the order of eviction, by misusing the process of law, and<\/p>\n
leaving the landlords in lurch, have been tremendously increasing day by<\/p>\n
day. The case in hand is a burning example of such like cases.<\/p>\n
2.           The matrix of the facts culminating in the commencement,<\/p>\n
relevant for disposal, of the present revision petition filed by Het Ram son<\/p>\n
of Matu Ram-petitioner-tenant (hereinafter to be referred as the tenant) and<\/p>\n
emanating from the record is, that originally Virbhan son of Fakir Chand-<\/p>\n
respondent-landlord (hereinafter to be referred as the landlord) filed an<\/p>\n
ejectment petition No.57 on 12.09.1992 against the tenant, invoking the<\/p>\n
provisions of Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction)<\/p>\n
Act, 1973 (hereinafter to be referred as “the Act”) on the ground of non-
\n Civil Revision No.2003 of 2007                           2<\/span><\/p>\n
payment of rent, impaired the value and utility of the shop by demolishing<\/p>\n
the floor and walls and the tenant used to create nuisance in the locality by<\/p>\n
giving bad names.\n<\/p>\n
3.          The tenant contested the ejectment petition, inter alia, stoutly<\/p>\n
denying the allegations contained therein and prayed for its dismissal.<\/p>\n
4.          The parties produced their oral as well as documentary<\/p>\n
evidence in order to substantiate their respective pleaded cases. The Rent<\/p>\n
Controller held that the rate of rent of the demised premises was Rs.600\/-<\/p>\n
per month and as the tenant did not make the payment and was defaulter,<\/p>\n
therefore, he was liable to be ejected on the ground of non-payment of<\/p>\n
rent. As a sequel of the findings, the Rent Controller vide order dated<\/p>\n
19.08.1997 accepted the ejectment petition and directed the tenant to hand<\/p>\n
over the vacant possession of the demised premises to the landlord within<\/p>\n
two months from the date of order.\n<\/p>\n
5.          The tenant did not feel satisfied with the ejectment order and<\/p>\n
filed rent appeal No.10 on 19.09.1997 before the appellate authority. As<\/p>\n
soon as, the appeal came up for hearing on 24.10.1998, instead of<\/p>\n
arguing, the tenant entered into a compromise with the landlord and<\/p>\n
executed compromise deed (Annexure P\/1), which is to the following<\/p>\n
effect:-\n<\/p>\n
                    “The above mentioned appeal has been compromised<\/p>\n
                    between the parties according to which Het Ram,<\/p>\n
                    appellant will vacate the shop in dispute and hand over<\/p>\n
                    the possession to respondent landlord Sh.Virbhan on<\/p>\n
                    30.11.2004. The rent of the shop in dispute hence forth<\/p>\n
                    will be Rs.750\/- per month which has been settled and<\/p>\n
                    fixed. Besides this, appellant\/tenant will increase after<\/p>\n
                    every year Rs.60\/- per month inclusive of taxes and will<\/p>\n
                    continue to pay the same to the respondent\/landlord and
\n Civil Revision No.2003 of 2007                             3<\/span><\/p>\n
                  landlord will issue receipt to the appellant\/tenant.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
                        That the respondent landlord will not be entitled to<\/p>\n
                  take possession before 30.11.2004. In case Het Ram,<\/p>\n
                  tenant failed to deliver the possession on 30.11.2004,<\/p>\n
                  then respondent\/landlord will be entitled to take<\/p>\n
                  possession through execution.           The appellant\/tenant<\/p>\n
                  shall not sub-let the shop in dispute upto 30.11.2004.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n                  As per the orders of the court, the appellant has<\/p>\n
                  deposited      rent   upto   October,     1998   which   the<\/p>\n
                  respondent\/ landlord will be entitled to receive the same.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
                        That from October, 1998, the appellant\/tenant Het<\/p>\n
                  Ram will go on paying the rent at the rate of Rs.750\/-<\/p>\n
                  per month inclusive of taxes and by increasing after<\/p>\n
                  every year Rs.60\/- per month, will continue to pay to the<\/p>\n
                  respondent\/landlord. The appeal be decided in terms of<\/p>\n
                  this compromise and the compromise be made part of<\/p>\n
                  the order and the order of ejectment be passed<\/p>\n
                  accordingly. Both the parties will bear their own costs.<\/p>\n
                  Both the parties shall be bound with this compromise.<\/p>\n
                  The respondent\/landlord shall withdraw all his previous<\/p>\n
                  cases and the previous dispute be finished as per the<\/p>\n
                  compromise”.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
6.          Acting on the compromise between the parties, the appellate<\/p>\n
authority dismissed the appeal vide separate order of the same date<\/p>\n
(Annexure P\/2), which reads as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
                  “The parties have compromised the case in this appeal.<\/p>\n
                  An application for permission to compromise the case<\/p>\n
                  has also been filed by Het Ram, petitioner.              The<\/p>\n
                  application has also been supported by the affidavit of
\n Civil Revision No.2003 of 2007                         4<\/span><\/p>\n
                  Het Ram, written compromise Ex.C1 has also been<\/p>\n
                  placed on record which has been signed by both the<\/p>\n
                  parties and their respective counsel. The statement of<\/p>\n
                  Het Ram appellant as well as statement of Veerbhan<\/p>\n
                  respondent have also been recorded in which they have<\/p>\n
                  stated that they have compromised the case vide<\/p>\n
                  compromise Ex.C1 which may be treated as part of<\/p>\n
                  compromise. In view of the statement of the parties, the<\/p>\n
                  petition of the appellant (respondent in this appeal) is<\/p>\n
                  hereby decreed. However, the parties are left to bear<\/p>\n
                  their own cost.   The written compromise Ex.C1 shall<\/p>\n
                  form part of the decree.     The appeal is accordingly<\/p>\n
                  disposed of”.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
It means, the tenant has accepted the order of ejectment, took time of<\/p>\n
about six years and undertook to vacate the shop and hand over the<\/p>\n
possession to the landlord on 30.11.2004.\n<\/p>\n
7.          As the tenant did not hand over the vacant possession as per<\/p>\n
his undertaking, the landlord filed the execution petition No.11 on<\/p>\n
26.02.2005 for taking possession. The tenant instead of honouring the<\/p>\n
undertaking and handing over the possession, filed the objection-petition<\/p>\n
which was dismissed by the Rent Controller vide impugned order dated<\/p>\n
10.03.2007 (Annexure P\/3). The tenant again filed an appeal against the<\/p>\n
order dated 10.03.2007 which was dismissed with special cost of<\/p>\n
Rs.5,000\/- by the appellate authority vide order dated 11.04.2007<\/p>\n
(Annexure P\/4). The impugned orders (Annexures P\/3 and P\/4) would also<\/p>\n
reveal that the tenant has also filed a civil suit for permanent injunction<\/p>\n
against the landlord restraining him (landlord) from dispossessing the<\/p>\n
tenant from the suit property on the basis of ejectment order dated<\/p>\n
24.10.1998 in which stay application of the tenant has already been
\n Civil Revision No.2003 of 2007                           5<\/span><\/p>\n
dismissed by the then Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhiwani,<\/p>\n
vide order dated 20.01.2006.\n<\/p>\n
8.          Having lost two rounds of litigation in the courts below, now the<\/p>\n
tenant has challenged the impugned orders (Annexures P\/3 and P\/4) by<\/p>\n
way of this revision petition. That is how I am seized of the matter.<\/p>\n
9.          Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, having gone<\/p>\n
through the record of the case with their valuable help and after bestowal of<\/p>\n
thoughts over the entire matter, to my mind, it is a case of absolute misuse<\/p>\n
of process of law by the tenant, and as there is no merit, therefore, the<\/p>\n
petition deserves to be dismissed with special costs for the reasons<\/p>\n
mentioned herein below.\n<\/p>\n
10.         The main celebrated argument of the learned counsel for the<\/p>\n
tenant that as the area where the disputed premises is situated was taken<\/p>\n
out of the purview of Municipal Area on 02.03.2000 and as such, the<\/p>\n
provisions of the Act were not applicable, therefore, the Rent Controller<\/p>\n
was not justified in entertaining the execution petition and dismissing the<\/p>\n
objection petition of the tenant, is neither tenable nor the observations of<\/p>\n
this Court in a case titled as J.U.Katyal and another Versus Krishan<\/p>\n
Kapur and others, (2005-1) PLR 558, are at all applicable to the facts of<\/p>\n
the present case. The plaintiff in that case being the owner\/landlord of the<\/p>\n
house in dispute had filed a suit for possession on 11.10.1999 by way of<\/p>\n
ejectment of the tenant. During the pendency of the suit, the provisions of<\/p>\n
the Haryana Rent Act were made applicable to the Panchkula town vide<\/p>\n
notification dated 25.01.2001. The trial court dismissed the suit and the<\/p>\n
judgment was upheld in appeal. On the peculiar facts and circumstances<\/p>\n
of that case, it was observed that subsequent applicability of the Rent Act<\/p>\n
on account of declaration of urban area would render the decree of the<\/p>\n
Civil Court inexecutable.\n<\/p>\n
11.         Possibly, no one can dispute about the aforesaid propositions
\n Civil Revision No.2003 of 2007                             6<\/span><\/p>\n
of law but the same would not come to the rescue of the tenant, because in<\/p>\n
the present case, admittedly, the provisions of Rent Act were fully<\/p>\n
applicable when the landlord filed the ejectment petition, the Rent<\/p>\n
Controller passed the ejectment order against the tenant and the appellate<\/p>\n
authority decided the appeal of the tenant on the basis of compromise.<\/p>\n
The tenant accepted the ejectment order and compromised the matter in<\/p>\n
appeal. If the provisions of Rent Act were fully applicable at the relevant<\/p>\n
point of time then subsequent change will not, in any way, affect the rights<\/p>\n
already accrued to the landlord particularly when the tenant has accepted<\/p>\n
the order of ejectment by entering into compromise with the landlord. If the<\/p>\n
argument of learned counsel for the tenant is accepted then perhaps, no<\/p>\n
landlord would ever be able to get possession of his property.<\/p>\n
12.         An identical question came up for consideration before the<\/p>\n
Hon’ble Apex Court in a case titled as M\/s Kesho Ram and Co. and<\/p>\n
others etc. Versus Union of India and others, (1989) 3 SCC 151,<\/p>\n
wherein it was held as under:-\n<\/p>\n
                  “……It is a matter of common knowledge that final<\/p>\n
                  disposal of suits before the civil court are time<\/p>\n
                  consuming in view of the heavy workload of cases and<\/p>\n
                  dilatory tactics adopted by the interested party. Having<\/p>\n
                  regard to time normally consumed for adjudication of a<\/p>\n
                  suit by the civil court, it is too much to expect that a suit<\/p>\n
                  filed within the period of exemption of five years can be<\/p>\n
                  disposed of finally within the period of exemption. The<\/p>\n
                  exemption contemplated by the notification permits the<\/p>\n
                  institution of a suit within the period of exemption.<\/p>\n
                  Taking into account the delay caused in disposal of the<\/p>\n
                  suit, it further protects the jurisdiction of the civil court in<\/p>\n
                  passing decree of eviction with a view to make the
\n Civil Revision No.2003 of 2007                            7<\/span><\/p>\n
                   exemption effective and meaningful. In this view, if the<\/p>\n
                   submission made on behalf of the tenants is accepted, it<\/p>\n
                   would render the exemption illusory, as in reality, it will<\/p>\n
                   be impossible for a landlord to get the suit decreed<\/p>\n
                   within the period of exemption even if he instituted the<\/p>\n
                   suit within the period of exemption. Interpretation of the<\/p>\n
                   Act and the impugned notification as suggested on<\/p>\n
                   behalf of the tenants if accepted would defeat the<\/p>\n
                   purpose of the beneficial social legislation. It is a settled<\/p>\n
                   rule of harmonious construction of statute that a<\/p>\n
                   construction which would advance the object and<\/p>\n
                   purpose of the legislation should be followed and a<\/p>\n
                   construction which would result in reducing a provision<\/p>\n
                   of the Act to a dead letter or to defeat the object and<\/p>\n
                   purpose of the statute should be avoided without doing<\/p>\n
                   any violence to the language. We therefore reject the<\/p>\n
                   submission made on behalf of tenants”.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
13.         The same view was again reiterated by this Court in a case<\/p>\n
titled as Ramesh Kumar Versus Paras Ram, RSA No.1709 of 2006<\/p>\n
decided on March 22, 2007.\n<\/p>\n
14.         Thus, it would be seen that once it is proved that the Rent<\/p>\n
Controller had the jurisdiction under the provisions of the Act at the time of<\/p>\n
institution and disposal of ejectment petition, the tenant accepted the<\/p>\n
ejectment order and his appeal was dismissed by the appellate authority on<\/p>\n
24.10.1998 on the basis of compromise between the parties, the tenant<\/p>\n
took time till 30.11.2004 and did not deliver the possession till today on one<\/p>\n
pretext or the other as discussed hereinabove, then, to me, it cannot<\/p>\n
possibly be saith that the Rent Controller did not have the jurisdiction to<\/p>\n
execute the ejectment order in this regard, as urged on behalf of the
\n Civil Revision No.2003 of 2007                             8<\/span><\/p>\n
tenant.\n<\/p>\n
15.          The other feeble argument of the learned counsel that since<\/p>\n
the Rent Controller did not assess the rent etc. and as the tenant did not<\/p>\n
accept the ejectment order before the appellate authority, so the order of<\/p>\n
appellate authority was void, inexecutable, is not only devoid of merit but<\/p>\n
misplaced as well. As indicated earlier, the Rent Controller passed the<\/p>\n
ejectment order against the tenant on the ground of non-payment of<\/p>\n
arrears of rent.   The tenant filed the appeal before the appellate authority<\/p>\n
wherein he had submitted the compromise deed (Annexure P\/1) and took<\/p>\n
long six years’ time to vacate the demised premises. Then it does not lie in<\/p>\n
the mouth of the tenant and he is estopped from his own act and conduct<\/p>\n
to deny the legitimate right of the landlord, already accrued, to recover the<\/p>\n
possession of his premises. Instead of arguing the appeal, he (tenant)<\/p>\n
himself invited the Court to decide the matter in the wake of compromise<\/p>\n
deed. Meaning thereby, the tenant has first accepted the ejectment order<\/p>\n
and then compromised the matter. As his acceptance is inherent, inbuilt<\/p>\n
and implicit in this direction, in that eventuality, the tenant cannot claim that<\/p>\n
he has not accepted the ejectment order.\n<\/p>\n
16.          The matter did not rest there.       He kept quite and did not<\/p>\n
challenge the order dated 24.10.1998 till the landlord filed the execution<\/p>\n
petition in the year, 2005. It will not be out of place to mention here that the<\/p>\n
landlord always has a legitimate\/legal right to recover the possession of his<\/p>\n
property but subject to the restrictions contained in the Rent Act. If the<\/p>\n
tenant was aggrieved by the order dated 24.10.1998 of the appellate<\/p>\n
authority, he ought to have challenged the same at that point of time but<\/p>\n
now the tenant cannot possibly be heard to say that the earlier order of the<\/p>\n
appellate authority was not binding on him. If the arguments of the learned<\/p>\n
counsel for the tenant are accepted as such then it will cause a great<\/p>\n
injustice to the landlord. Therefore, the contrary arguments of the learned
\n Civil Revision No.2003 of 2007                             9<\/span><\/p>\n
counsel for the tenant ‘stricto-sensu’ deserve to be and are hereby repelled<\/p>\n
under the present set of circumstances.\n<\/p>\n
17.          There is another aspect of the matter which can be viewed<\/p>\n
from a different angle. A bare perusal of the record would reveal that the<\/p>\n
unfortunate landlord filed the ejectment petition on 12.09.1992 and the<\/p>\n
tenant contested the same. Having completed all the codal formalities,<\/p>\n
ultimately, the Rent Controller passed the ejectment order on 19.08.1997.<\/p>\n
The tenant filed the appeal which was decided on the basis of compromise<\/p>\n
on 24.10.1998 and he took six years’ time till 30.11.2004 to hand over the<\/p>\n
vacant possession to the landlord. But instead of handing over the same,<\/p>\n
the tenant in order to delay the delivery of the possession, took recourse to<\/p>\n
various litigations and misused the process of law. He has not vacated the<\/p>\n
demised premises which necessitated the landlord to file the execution<\/p>\n
petition No.11 on 26.02.2005 in which the tenant filed the objection-petition<\/p>\n
which was dismissed by the Rent Controller on 10.03.2007 (Annexure P\/3).<\/p>\n
The appeal filed by him was also dismissed by the appellate authority vide<\/p>\n
order dated 11.04.2007 (Annexure P\/4) with special cost of Rs.5,000\/- but<\/p>\n
even then the tenant did not learn the lesson and preferred the present<\/p>\n
revision petition which sans merit.\n<\/p>\n
18.          Thus, seen from any angle, to me, the courts below have<\/p>\n
rightly dismissed the objections of the tenant in right perspective of the<\/p>\n
matter. No fault could possibly be attributed to the impugned orders and<\/p>\n
such orders cannot possibly be set aside in exercise of revisional<\/p>\n
jurisdiction of this Court, which is very limited and is confined only to testing<\/p>\n
the legality or propriety of the orders under revision. It is now well settled<\/p>\n
proposition of law that it is not the province of this Court to set aside such<\/p>\n
orders unless the same are perverse and without jurisdiction. No such<\/p>\n
irregularity or patent illegality has been pointed out by the learned counsel<\/p>\n
for the tenant. It is, therefore, that the impugned orders deserve to be and
\n Civil Revision No.2003 of 2007                              10<\/span><\/p>\n
are hereby affirmed in the obtaining circumstances of the case.<\/p>\n
19.         No other point worth consideration has been urged or pressed<\/p>\n
by the learned counsel for the parties.\n<\/p>\n
20.         Be that as it may, but the fact remains is that the landlord is<\/p>\n
roaming around the matter since 12.09.1992 when he originally filed the<\/p>\n
ejectment petition.   The tenant adopted illegitimate measures and took<\/p>\n
recourse to various litigations indicated hereinabove, to delay the delivery<\/p>\n
of possession. It means, the landlord remained unsuccessful in getting the<\/p>\n
possession of demised premises till today i.e., after long 17 years without<\/p>\n
any fault on his part. Thus, the tenant misused the process of law in this<\/p>\n
context. This illegitimate practice and tendency of the tenants needs to be<\/p>\n
curved by imposing a special cost in this direction, otherwise, it will<\/p>\n
inculcate and perpetuate injustice to the landlord.<\/p>\n
21.         In the light of the aforesaid reasons, as there is no merit,<\/p>\n
therefore, the revision petition is hereby dismissed with special costs of<\/p>\n
Rs.50,000\/- (Rupees fifty thousand).\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
November 11, 2009                                     ( Mehinder Singh Sullar)\nseema                                                        Judge\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court Het Ram vs Virbhan on 11 November, 2009 Civil Revision No.2003 of 2007 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.2003 of 2007 Date of Decision:11.11.2009 Het Ram …..Petitioner Versus Virbhan …..Respondent CORAM: Hon’ble Mr.Justice Mehinder Singh Sullar. Present: Mr.C.B.Goel, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Shailendra Jain, […]<\/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":[8,28],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-61164","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-punjab-haryana-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nHet Ram vs Virbhan on 11 November, 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\/het-ram-vs-virbhan-on-11-november-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Het Ram vs Virbhan on 11 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/het-ram-vs-virbhan-on-11-november-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=\"2009-11-10T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-07-17T11:35:14+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=\"14 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/het-ram-vs-virbhan-on-11-november-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/het-ram-vs-virbhan-on-11-november-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Het Ram vs Virbhan on 11 November, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-11-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-07-17T11:35:14+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/het-ram-vs-virbhan-on-11-november-2009\"},\"wordCount\":2782,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Punjab-Haryana High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/het-ram-vs-virbhan-on-11-november-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/het-ram-vs-virbhan-on-11-november-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/het-ram-vs-virbhan-on-11-november-2009\",\"name\":\"Het Ram vs Virbhan on 11 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-11-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-07-17T11:35:14+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/het-ram-vs-virbhan-on-11-november-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/het-ram-vs-virbhan-on-11-november-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/het-ram-vs-virbhan-on-11-november-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Het Ram vs Virbhan on 11 November, 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":"Het Ram vs Virbhan on 11 November, 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\/het-ram-vs-virbhan-on-11-november-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Het Ram vs Virbhan on 11 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/het-ram-vs-virbhan-on-11-november-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-11-10T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-07-17T11:35:14+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":"14 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/het-ram-vs-virbhan-on-11-november-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/het-ram-vs-virbhan-on-11-november-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Het Ram vs Virbhan on 11 November, 2009","datePublished":"2009-11-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-07-17T11:35:14+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/het-ram-vs-virbhan-on-11-november-2009"},"wordCount":2782,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Punjab-Haryana High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/het-ram-vs-virbhan-on-11-november-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/het-ram-vs-virbhan-on-11-november-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/het-ram-vs-virbhan-on-11-november-2009","name":"Het Ram vs Virbhan on 11 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-11-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-07-17T11:35:14+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/het-ram-vs-virbhan-on-11-november-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/het-ram-vs-virbhan-on-11-november-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/het-ram-vs-virbhan-on-11-november-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Het Ram vs Virbhan on 11 November, 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\/61164","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=61164"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/61164\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=61164"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=61164"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=61164"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}