{"id":6812,"date":"2010-07-27T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-07-26T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/trilok-chand-others-vs-smt-riyaz-fatma-on-27-july-2010"},"modified":"2016-08-20T17:25:03","modified_gmt":"2016-08-20T11:55:03","slug":"trilok-chand-others-vs-smt-riyaz-fatma-on-27-july-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/trilok-chand-others-vs-smt-riyaz-fatma-on-27-july-2010","title":{"rendered":"Trilok Chand &amp; Others vs Smt. Riyaz Fatma on 27 July, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Allahabad High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Trilok Chand &amp; Others vs Smt. Riyaz Fatma on 27 July, 2010<\/div>\n<pre>Court No. - 7\n\n\nCase :- WRIT - A No. - 50020 of 2009\n\n\nPetitioner :- Trilok Chand &amp; Others\nRespondent :- Smt. Riyaz Fatma\nPetitioner Counsel :- K.M. Garg\nRespondent Counsel :- Amit\n\n\nHon'ble Devendra Pratap Singh,J.\n<\/pre>\n<p>      Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.\n<\/p>\n<p>      This petition by the tenant is directed against concurrent orders<br \/>\ndated 27.10.2005 and 29.8.2009 by which both the courts below have<br \/>\ndecreed the eviction suit filed by the respondent-landlord on the ground<br \/>\nof arrears of rent etc.<\/p>\n<p>      It appears that the respondent-landlady instituted a SCC Suit no.<br \/>\n14 of 1996 against the petitioner-tenant for recovery of arrears of rent<br \/>\nand damages for eviction from the shop in dispute mainly on the ground<br \/>\nthat the provisions of U.P. Act NO. XIII of 1972 (here-in-after referred to<br \/>\nas the act) do not apply and that the tenant has sublet the disputed shop<br \/>\nto one Raghubir Singh and Raju and has not paid the rent from 1.1.1991<br \/>\ntogether with house rent etc. and despite a notice determining the<br \/>\ntenancy by registered post, neither the shop was vacated nor arrears of<br \/>\nrent were paid.\n<\/p>\n<p>      The petitioner-tenant contested the suit inter-alia on the ground<br \/>\nthat the Act applies to the disputed shop and since the husband of the<br \/>\nlandlady refused to accept the rent, he had deposited it in proceedings<br \/>\nunder section 30 of the Act and there was no default and the rent has<br \/>\nbeen paid. Subletting was also denied.\n<\/p>\n<p>      After the parties led their evidence, the Judge, Small Cause Court<br \/>\nvide order dated 22.7.1997 held that the Act was applicable and the<br \/>\ntenant was not a defaulter but it went on to hold that the tenant was an<br \/>\nunauthorized occupant without an order of allotment and therefore partly<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                                                             2<\/span><\/p>\n<p>decreed the suit for recovery of rent but refused eviction. In the resultant<br \/>\nrevision, the entire suit itself was dismissed vide order dated 16.9.1998.<br \/>\nThe landlady challenged the said two decision in writ petition no.40881 of<br \/>\n1998 and a learned Single Judge of this Court allowed the writ petition<br \/>\nvide order dated 25.2.2005 holding that both the courts below have erred<br \/>\nin not considering the applicability of the Act in accordance to section 2(2)<br \/>\nof the Act and accordingly, it remanded the matter to be decided afresh<br \/>\nto the trial court in accordance with observation made therein.\n<\/p>\n<p>      After remand, both the courts below, taking into account the<br \/>\nassessment order of the disputed shop and other evidence on record,<br \/>\nfound that the Act was not applicable as it was assessed to tax for the<br \/>\nfirst time with effect from 1.4.1991. Further, after recording a finding that<br \/>\nthe petitioner had defaulted in payment of rent, it has decreed the suit.\n<\/p>\n<p>      It is urged that both the courts below have failed to address<br \/>\nthemselves to the main question as on which date the disputed shop<br \/>\ncame within the limit of the local authority and actual date of construction<br \/>\nand as no actual date of construction has been proved and therefore the<br \/>\njudgements are vitiated. In support thereof, he has relied upon a decision<br \/>\nof this Court rendered in the case of Ram Sanehi Vs. 3rd Additional<br \/>\nDistrict Judge and others [1992 (2) A.R.C. 653].\n<\/p>\n<p>      No doubt, in Ram Sanehi&#8217;s case it was held that where a building<br \/>\nhad already been constructed but subsequently came within the limit of<br \/>\nthe local authority, section 2 (2) of the Act may not apply. However, in<br \/>\nthe present case, the facts are entirely different. The petitioner had taken<br \/>\nup a consistent stand that the constructions were made in 1950 when his<br \/>\nfather was inducted as a tenant but no worthwhile evidence was led to<br \/>\nprove it. To the contrary, the landlord led evidence to prove that the<br \/>\nconstructions were started in 1986 and completed in 1990 and the first<br \/>\nassessment was made with effect from 1.4.1991. These findings of fact<br \/>\nare based on evidence and have not been shown to be perverse.<br \/>\nTherefore, in the opinion of the court, there was no occasion for the<br \/>\ncourts to have dealt upon the aforesaid question in the teeth of the<br \/>\nevidence on record.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                                                            3<\/span><\/p>\n<p>      It is then urged that the assessment order produced was for a<br \/>\ndifferent shop and the petitioner was not shown to be a tenant therein.\n<\/p>\n<p>      It is worthwhile that upon the application of the petitioner, the<br \/>\nofficial of the local authority was summoned along with records with<br \/>\nregard to the disputed shop and he appeared and proved that the shop<br \/>\nwas constructed within the limit of the local authority and was assessed<br \/>\nto tax for the first time with effect from 1.4.1991. the courts below have<br \/>\nfound that the petitioner did not claim the tenancy of any other shop but<br \/>\nthe disputed shop whose record was produced by the DW2. Further, it is<br \/>\napparent from the record that the specific case of the respondent-landlord<br \/>\nwas that he had inducted Raghubir Singh and Raju as subtenant whose<br \/>\npossession is shown in shop no. 4 in the list. Thus, the argument cannot<br \/>\nbe accepted.\n<\/p>\n<p>      Lastly it is urged that the plaintiff did not appear in the witness box<br \/>\nto prove default and therefore the suit could not have been decreed. He<br \/>\nhas relied upon a decision of the Apex Court rendered in the case of<br \/>\nJanki Vasudeo Bhojwani Vs. Industrial Bank [2005 (1) A.W.C. 138].<br \/>\nSo far as the ratio laid-down in Bhojwani&#8217;s case is concerned, they would<br \/>\nnot apply to this case as the facts therein were entirely different. The<br \/>\ncourts below have found that it was the petitioner&#8217;s case himself that the<br \/>\nrent was being realized on behalf of the plaintiff by her husband who<br \/>\nentered the witness box and proved the default. Therefore, mere non-<br \/>\nexamination of the plaintiff, on the facts of this case, was not fatal. Thus,<br \/>\nthis argument also cannot be accepted.\n<\/p>\n<p>      No other point has been urged.\n<\/p>\n<p>      For the reasons above, this is not a fit case for interference under<br \/>\nArticle 226 of the Constitution of India. Rejected.\n<\/p>\n<p>      After the order had been dictated but before it could be signed,<br \/>\nlearned counsel for the petitioner, upon instructions of his client, has<br \/>\ngiven an undertaking which is also supported by an affidavit, that if a<br \/>\nreasonable time is given, he would handover peaceful vacant possession<br \/>\nto the respondent-landlord. Accordingly, the petitioner shall hand over the<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                                                           4<\/span><\/p>\n<p>vacant possession of the disputed premises to the respondent-landlord<br \/>\nwithout creating any third party rights on or before 25.10.2010. He will<br \/>\nalso pay the entire rent uptil that date to the respondent-landlord within a<br \/>\nperiod of four weeks from today. The amount already deposited would be<br \/>\nadjusted. In case of default in payment of rent, the petitioner shall be<br \/>\nliable for eviction forthwith.\n<\/p>\n<p>Order Date :- 27.7.2010<br \/>\nAU\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Allahabad High Court Trilok Chand &amp; Others vs Smt. Riyaz Fatma on 27 July, 2010 Court No. &#8211; 7 Case :- WRIT &#8211; A No. &#8211; 50020 of 2009 Petitioner :- Trilok Chand &amp; Others Respondent :- Smt. Riyaz Fatma Petitioner Counsel :- K.M. Garg Respondent Counsel :- Amit Hon&#8217;ble Devendra Pratap Singh,J. Heard learned [&hellip;]<\/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":[9,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-6812","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-allahabad-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Trilok Chand &amp; Others vs Smt. Riyaz Fatma on 27 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/trilok-chand-others-vs-smt-riyaz-fatma-on-27-july-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Trilok Chand &amp; Others vs Smt. Riyaz Fatma on 27 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/trilok-chand-others-vs-smt-riyaz-fatma-on-27-july-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-07-26T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-08-20T11:55:03+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=\"6 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/trilok-chand-others-vs-smt-riyaz-fatma-on-27-july-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/trilok-chand-others-vs-smt-riyaz-fatma-on-27-july-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Trilok Chand &amp; Others vs Smt. Riyaz Fatma on 27 July, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-07-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-08-20T11:55:03+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/trilok-chand-others-vs-smt-riyaz-fatma-on-27-july-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1087,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Allahabad High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/trilok-chand-others-vs-smt-riyaz-fatma-on-27-july-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/trilok-chand-others-vs-smt-riyaz-fatma-on-27-july-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/trilok-chand-others-vs-smt-riyaz-fatma-on-27-july-2010\",\"name\":\"Trilok Chand &amp; Others vs Smt. Riyaz Fatma on 27 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-07-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-08-20T11:55:03+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/trilok-chand-others-vs-smt-riyaz-fatma-on-27-july-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/trilok-chand-others-vs-smt-riyaz-fatma-on-27-july-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/trilok-chand-others-vs-smt-riyaz-fatma-on-27-july-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Trilok Chand &amp; Others vs Smt. Riyaz Fatma on 27 July, 2010\"}]},{\"@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":"Trilok Chand &amp; Others vs Smt. Riyaz Fatma on 27 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/trilok-chand-others-vs-smt-riyaz-fatma-on-27-july-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Trilok Chand &amp; Others vs Smt. Riyaz Fatma on 27 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/trilok-chand-others-vs-smt-riyaz-fatma-on-27-july-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-07-26T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-08-20T11:55:03+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":"6 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/trilok-chand-others-vs-smt-riyaz-fatma-on-27-july-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/trilok-chand-others-vs-smt-riyaz-fatma-on-27-july-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Trilok Chand &amp; Others vs Smt. Riyaz Fatma on 27 July, 2010","datePublished":"2010-07-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-08-20T11:55:03+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/trilok-chand-others-vs-smt-riyaz-fatma-on-27-july-2010"},"wordCount":1087,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Allahabad High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/trilok-chand-others-vs-smt-riyaz-fatma-on-27-july-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/trilok-chand-others-vs-smt-riyaz-fatma-on-27-july-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/trilok-chand-others-vs-smt-riyaz-fatma-on-27-july-2010","name":"Trilok Chand &amp; Others vs Smt. Riyaz Fatma on 27 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-07-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-08-20T11:55:03+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/trilok-chand-others-vs-smt-riyaz-fatma-on-27-july-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/trilok-chand-others-vs-smt-riyaz-fatma-on-27-july-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/trilok-chand-others-vs-smt-riyaz-fatma-on-27-july-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Trilok Chand &amp; Others vs Smt. Riyaz Fatma on 27 July, 2010"}]},{"@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\/6812","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=6812"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6812\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=6812"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=6812"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=6812"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}