{"id":70762,"date":"1999-07-31T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1999-07-30T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prem-narayan-barchhiha-vs-hakimuddin-saifi-on-31-july-1999"},"modified":"2018-01-23T18:17:29","modified_gmt":"2018-01-23T12:47:29","slug":"prem-narayan-barchhiha-vs-hakimuddin-saifi-on-31-july-1999","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prem-narayan-barchhiha-vs-hakimuddin-saifi-on-31-july-1999","title":{"rendered":"Prem Narayan Barchhiha vs Hakimuddin Saifi on 31 July, 1999"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Prem Narayan Barchhiha vs Hakimuddin Saifi on 31 July, 1999<\/div>\n
Author: S S Quadri<\/div>\n
Bench: V.N.Khare, Syed Shah Quadri<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nPREM NARAYAN BARCHHIHA\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nHAKIMUDDIN SAIFI\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t31\/07\/1999\n\nBENCH:\nV.N.Khare, Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri,\n\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
      SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI,J.\n<\/p>\n
      These   appeals,\tby  special   leave,  are  from\t the
\njudgments and decrees of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at
\nJabalpur  in  Second Appeal Nos.408\/89 and 409\/89 passed  on
\n9.7.1997.   The appellant is the landlord and the respondent
\nis  the\t tenant\t of two shops in house\tNos.23\/507  and\t 508
\nsituated  at  Azad  Chowk   Handipara,\tRaipur\t(hereinafter
\nreferred to as ‘suit premises’).\n<\/p>\n
      On  2.5.85, the appellant filed two suits in the Court
\nof IInd Civil Judge Class II, Raipur, against the respondent
\nfor  his  eviction from the suit premises on the  ground  of
\nbona fide requirement of his unemployed son for establishing
\na  Provision  Store  under Section 12(1)(f)  of\t the  Madhya
\nPradesh\t Accommodation\tControl\t Act, 1961 (for\t short\t‘the
\nAct’).\t He  stated  that he had no  alternative  reasonable
\nsuitable  non-\tresidential  accommodation in  the  city  of
\nRaipur\tfor the said purpose.  The respondent’s plea was one
\nof  denial of bona fide requirement of the landlord.   After
\nframing\t necessary  issues and considering the\tevidence  on
\nrecord,\t the learned Trial Judge came to the conclusion that
\nthe  appellant failed to prove his bona fide requirement and
\nobserved that he had only a desire to establish the business
\nfor  his  son.\t However, he recorded the finding  that\t the
\nappellant  had\tno reasonable suitable accommodation in\t the
\nRaipur\tcity.  Consequently both the suits were dismissed by
\nthe  learned Trial Judge by a Common judgment on January 27,
\n1987.\tDissatisfied  with that judgment and decree  of\t the
\nTrial  Court the appellant filed two appeals in the Court of
\nIst  Additional Distt.\tJudge, Raipur.\tThe learned District
\nJudge, on appreciating the evidence, held that the appellant
\nhad proved bona fide requirement for establishing a business
\nfor  his  son.\t In that view of the matter he\tallowed\t the
\nappeals\t and  decreed  the suits against the  respondent  on
\nSeptember  6,1989.  The tenant questioned the correctness of
\nthe  said judgment and decree of the learned District  Judge
\nbefore the High Court in Second Appeal Nos.408- 409 of 1989.\n<\/p>\n
      The High Court, at the time of admission of the Second
\nAppeals,   framed   the\t following   question  of  law\t for
\ndetermination :-\n<\/p>\n
      “Whether\tthe Court below was justified in granting  a
\ndecree\tunder  Section 12(1)(f) of the\tM.P.   Accommodation
\nControl\t Act, 1961, under the facts and circumstances of the
\ncase?”\n<\/p>\n
      At  the stage of final hearing of the Second  Appeals,
\nthe  following\tadditional substantial question of  law\t was
\nformulated :-\n<\/p>\n
      “Whether\trespondent has proved all the ingredients of
\nSection\t 12(1)(f)  of the M.P.\tAccommodation  Control\tAct,
\n1961  in  order\t to  get a decree of  eviction\tagainst\t the
\nappellant?”\n<\/p>\n
      The  answer  to these questions recorded by  the\tHigh
\nCourt,\tis  that  the  appellant failed\t to  prove  all\t the
\ningredients  of\t Section 12(1)(f) of the Act and  his  claim
\nthat  he  bona\tfide required the suit premises,  cannot  be
\nsustained  as  he  suppressed  the   fact  that\t he  was  in
\npossession  of\tan alternative vacant accommodation  in\t the
\nsame  building.\t The High Court thus allowed the appeals  of
\nthe respondent and dismissed both the suits of the appellant
\nfor the same reasons but by separate judgments dated 9.7.97.
\nIt is against those judgments and decrees of the High Court,
\nthe present appeals are filed.\tMr.  S.S.  Khanduja, learned
\ncounsel\t for  the appellant, contended that the\t High  Court
\nfell  into  an\terror in re-appreciating  the  evidence\t and
\nanswering  the\tquestions  in  the negative  –\tagainst\t the
\nappellant.   The  High\tCourt  should  have,  submitted\t the
\nlearned\t counsel,  recorded answer to the questions  on\t the
\nbasis of the facts found by the Ist Appellate Court.\n<\/p>\n
      Mr.B.S.Banthia,  learned\tcounsel\t appearing  for\t the
\nrespondent,  argued  that   the\t appellant\/landlord,  before
\nfiling\tthe  eviction  petition, had in his  possession\t two
\nresidential portions of the house which he let out to others
\nbut  he\t did  not plead that he was in possession  of  other
\naccommodation\tand   that   it\t  was\tnot   suitable\t for
\nnon-residential\t purposes  so  the High Court was  right  in
\ncoming\tto  the conclusion that as the appellant  suppressed
\nthe  facts his plea for bona fide personal requirement could
\nnot be accepted.\n<\/p>\n
      On  the contention urged before us, the question\tthat
\nneeds to be adverted to is :-\n<\/p>\n
      “Whether\tit  is\tincumbent upon a  landlord,  seeking
\neviction  of  the accommodation let out for  non-residential
\npurposes under Section 12(1)(f) of the Act to disclose if he
\nis  in\tpossession of residential accommodation and  further
\nprove that it is not suitable for non-residential purposes.”\n<\/p>\n
      The  definition of ‘accommodation’ in Section 2(a)  of
\nthe Act, reads as under :-\n<\/p>\n
      “2(a).”accommodation”  means any building or part of a
\nbuilding,   whether  residential  or   non-residential\t and
\nincludes –\n<\/p>\n
      (i)  any land which is not being used for agricultural
\npurposes;\n<\/p>\n
      (ii)  garden, grounds, garages and outhouses, if\tany,
\nappurtenant to such building or part of the building;\n<\/p>\n
      (iii) any fittings affixed to such building or part of
\na building for the more beneficial enjoyment thereof;\n<\/p>\n
      (iv) any furniture supplied by the landlord for use in
\nsuch building or part of a building.”\n<\/p>\n
      The  word ‘accommodation’ takes in both residential as
\nwell  as non-residential building or part of a building.  In
\nSection 12(1)(e)&(f), the expressions ‘accommodation let for
\nresidential   purposes’\t  and\t  ‘accommodation   let\t for
\nnon-residential\t purposes’ are used distinctly in clear\t and
\nunmistakable terms.\n<\/p>\n
      Now, it will be apt to refer to Clauses (e) and (f) of
\nSection 12(1) of the Act which run as under :\n<\/p>\n
      “12(1).\tRestriction  on eviction of tenants  –\t(1).
\nNotwithstanding\t anything  to the contrary contained in\t any
\nother  law or contract, no suit shall be filed in any  Civil
\nCourt\tagainst\t a  tenant  for\t  his  eviction\t  from\t any
\naccommodation except on one or more of the following grounds
\nonly namely :-\n<\/p>\n
      (a) to (d).  **** **** ****<\/p>\n
      (e)  that\t the  accommodation   let  for\t residential
\npurposes  is  required\tbona  fide   by\t the  landlord\t for
\noccupation  as a residence for himself or for any member  of
\nhis family, if he is the owner thereof or for any person for
\nwhose  benefit\tthe  accommodation  is\theld  and  that\t the
\nlandlord  or  such person has no other\treasonably  suitable
\nresidential  accommodation  of his own in his occupation  in
\nthe city or town concerned;\n<\/p>\n
      (f)  that\t the accommodation let for non-\t residential
\npurposes  is  required\tbona fide by the  landlord  for\t the
\npurpose\t of continuing or starting his business or that\t any
\nof  his major sons or unmarried daughters if he is the owner
\nthereof\t  or   for  any\t person\t  for  whose   benefit\t the
\naccommodation  is held and that the landlord or such  person
\nhas   no   other     reasonably\t  suitable   non-residential
\naccommodation  of  his own in his occupation in the city  or
\ntown concerned.”\n<\/p>\n
      A\t plain\treading of the provisions, extracted  above,
\nmakes  it  clear that the Act maintains a clear\t distinction
\nbetween\t the accommodation let for residential purposes\t and
\nthe  accommodation let for non-residential purposes.  Clause\n<\/p>\n
(e),  deals  with  ground  of  eviction\t of  a\ttenant\tfrom
\naccommodation  let  for\t residential purposes.\t Under\tthis
\nclause\teviction  of a tenant can be sought if the  landlord
\nbona  fide  requires the accommodation let  for\t residential
\npurposes  for  occupation as a residence for himself or\t for
\nany  member of his family, provided he is the owner  thereof
\nor  for\t any person for whose benefit the  accommodation  is
\nheld  and  that\t the landlord or such person  has  no  other
\nreasonably  suitable residential accommodation of his own in
\nhis  occupation\t in the city or town concerned.\t Clause\t (f)
\nwhich  deals  with  ground  of eviction\t of  a\ttenant\tfrom
\naccommodation  let for non-residential purposes and provides
\nthat  the  tenant  can be evicted if the  landlord  requires
\naccommodation let for non-residential purposes bona fide for
\nthe  purpose of continuing or starting his business or\tthat
\nof any of his major sons or unmarried daughters if he is the
\nowner  thereof\tor  for\t any person for\t whose\tbenefit\t the
\naccommodation  is held and that the landlord or such  person
\nhas   no   other     reasonably\t  suitable   non-residential
\naccommodation  of  his own in his occupation in the city  or
\ntown  concerned.   They\t [clauses  (e)\tand  (f)]  are\tthus
\ndistinct   and\t independent\tgrounds\t  having   different
\ningredients  and are thus mutually exclusive.  That, this is
\nthe  purport  of the said provisions, has been\tendorsed  by
\nthis Court in Firm Panjumal Daulatram Vs.  Sakhi Gopal [1977
\n(3)  SCC  284] and in Hasmat Rai and another Vs.   Raghunath
\nPrasad [AIR 1981 SC 1711].\n<\/p>\n
      Now  the ingredients of clause (f), with which we\t are
\nconcerned here, are :\n<\/p>\n
      (1)  the accommodation from which the tenant is sought
\nto be evicted has been let out for non-residential purposes;\n<\/p>\n
      (2)  the\tlandlord is the owner thereof  and  requires
\nthat  accommodation bona fide for the purpose of  continuing
\nor  starting (i) his business or (ii) business of any of his
\nmajor sons or unmarried daughters;  or<\/p>\n
      (3)  the\tlandlord requires the accommodation for\t any
\nperson\tfor whose benefit the accommodation is held by\thim;
\nand<\/p>\n
      (4)  the\tlandlord  or  such   person  has  no   other
\nreasonably suitable non-residential accommodation of his own
\nin his occupation in the city\/town concerned.\n<\/p>\n
      Admittedly,   here  requirements\t(1)   and  (2)\t are
\nsatisfied  (2 and 3 are alternative).  In regard to (4) what
\nis  necessary for the appellant is to satisfy the Court\/Rent
\nController  that  he  or such person for  whom\teviction  is
\nsought,\t has  no other reasonably  suitable  non-residential
\naccommodation  of  his own in his occupation in the city  or
\ntown  concerned.   On  this aspect the\tlearned\t Distt.Judge
\ncorrectly  recorded the finding in favour of the  appellant.
\nIt  follows  that the landlord seeking eviction of a  tenant
\nfrom  non-residential  accommodation on the ground  that  he
\nrequired  the same for the purpose of continuing or starting
\nhis  business  or  that any of his major sons  or  unmarried
\ndaughters,  has\t to  prove that he has no  other  reasonably
\nsuitable  non-\tresidential accommodation of his own in\t his
\noccupation  in\tthe  city  or town.  It is no  part  of\t the
\nobligation  of\tthe  landlord seeking eviction of  a  tenant
\nunder  Clause (f) of Section 12(1) of the Act to aver in his
\nplaint\/petition\t the  facts  that  he is  in  occupation  of
\nresidential  accommodation  and that it is not suitable\t for
\nnon-residential\t  purposes.   These  facts   are   not\t the
\nrequirement  of\t Clause(f) and are irrelevant to make out  a
\ncase  under that clause.  To read such a requirement in\t the
\nsaid  clause  (f)  would  amount to doing  violence  to\t the
\nlanguage of the clause nay rewriting the clause which is far
\nbeyond\tthe principle of ironout the creases and is  clearly
\nimpermissible.\n<\/p>\n
      It  is  futile  to  contend that\taccommodation  is  a
\nneutral\t word taking in its fold both residential as well as
\nnon-residential purposes, the landlord ought to disclose the
\nresidential accommodation in his possession and show that it
\nis  not\t reasonably suitable for non-  residential  purposes
\nwhen he is seeking eviction of the tenant from accommodation
\nlet  for non-residential purposes.  The Court cannot  burden
\nthe  landlord  with  additional\t  conditions  of  disclosing
\nparticulars  of residential accommodation in his  possession
\nand  proving  that  it\tis   not  reasonably  suitable\t for
\nnon-residential\t purposes.  Non-suiting him on such  grounds
\nwill mean non-suiting him on extraneous grounds.  It follows
\nthat  the appellant has fulfilled the fourth requirement  of
\nclause (f) also.\n<\/p>\n
      It  is, however, contended that there is no  provision
\nin   the  Act  which  prohibits\t  use  of  the\t residential
\naccommodation  let for non- residential purposes, therefore,
\nit  is\tthe  duty  of  the landlord to show  if\t he  has  in
\npossession  residential\t accommodation,\t even\twhen  he  is
\nseeking\t   eviction   of     tenant   for    non-residential
\naccommodation.\t Neither  on principle nor on authority\t can
\nsuch a contention be countenanced.  We have no hesitation in
\nrejecting the same.\n<\/p>\n
      From  the\t above\tdiscussion,  it\t follows  that\t the
\nappellant  has satisfied all the requirements of clause\t (f)
\nof  Section  12(1) of the Act.\tThe impugned  judgments\t and
\ndecrees\t of  the High Court on this aspect  are,  therefore,
\nerroneous and are liable to be set aside.\n<\/p>\n
      We  accordingly  set aside the impugned judgments\t and
\ndecrees\t of the High Court and restore the orders of the Ist
\nAppellate  Court dated 6.9.89.\tThe appeals are allowed\t and
\nthe  suits  of the appellant for eviction of the  respondent
\nfrom  suit premises are decreed.  There shall be no order as
\nto costs.\n<\/p>\n
      ……………………J.  (V.N.Khare)<\/p>\n
      ……………………J.    (Syed    Shah   Mohammed
\nQuadri) New Delhi, August 3, 1999.\n<\/p>\n
      IN   THE\tSUPREME\t COURT\tOF  INDIA  CIVIL   APPELLATE
\nJURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS.999-1000 OF 1998<\/p>\n
      Prem N.Barchhiha …  Appellant<\/p>\n
      versus<\/p>\n
      Hakimuddin Saifi …  Respondent<\/p>\n
      Draft  Judgment  in the above matter is sent  herewith
\nfor perusal and kind consideration.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Prem Narayan Barchhiha vs Hakimuddin Saifi on 31 July, 1999 Author: S S Quadri Bench: V.N.Khare, Syed Shah Quadri PETITIONER: PREM NARAYAN BARCHHIHA Vs. RESPONDENT: HAKIMUDDIN SAIFI DATE OF JUDGMENT: 31\/07\/1999 BENCH: V.N.Khare, Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri, JUDGMENT: SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI,J. These appeals, by special leave, are from the judgments […]<\/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-70762","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nPrem Narayan Barchhiha vs Hakimuddin Saifi on 31 July, 1999 - 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\/prem-narayan-barchhiha-vs-hakimuddin-saifi-on-31-july-1999\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Prem Narayan Barchhiha vs Hakimuddin Saifi on 31 July, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prem-narayan-barchhiha-vs-hakimuddin-saifi-on-31-july-1999\" \/>\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=\"1999-07-30T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-01-23T12:47:29+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=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/prem-narayan-barchhiha-vs-hakimuddin-saifi-on-31-july-1999#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/prem-narayan-barchhiha-vs-hakimuddin-saifi-on-31-july-1999\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Prem Narayan Barchhiha vs Hakimuddin Saifi on 31 July, 1999\",\"datePublished\":\"1999-07-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-01-23T12:47:29+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/prem-narayan-barchhiha-vs-hakimuddin-saifi-on-31-july-1999\"},\"wordCount\":2075,\"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\\\/prem-narayan-barchhiha-vs-hakimuddin-saifi-on-31-july-1999#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/prem-narayan-barchhiha-vs-hakimuddin-saifi-on-31-july-1999\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/prem-narayan-barchhiha-vs-hakimuddin-saifi-on-31-july-1999\",\"name\":\"Prem Narayan Barchhiha vs Hakimuddin Saifi on 31 July, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1999-07-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-01-23T12:47:29+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/prem-narayan-barchhiha-vs-hakimuddin-saifi-on-31-july-1999#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/prem-narayan-barchhiha-vs-hakimuddin-saifi-on-31-july-1999\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/prem-narayan-barchhiha-vs-hakimuddin-saifi-on-31-july-1999#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Prem Narayan Barchhiha vs Hakimuddin Saifi on 31 July, 1999\"}]},{\"@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":"Prem Narayan Barchhiha vs Hakimuddin Saifi on 31 July, 1999 - 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\/prem-narayan-barchhiha-vs-hakimuddin-saifi-on-31-july-1999","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Prem Narayan Barchhiha vs Hakimuddin Saifi on 31 July, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prem-narayan-barchhiha-vs-hakimuddin-saifi-on-31-july-1999","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1999-07-30T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-01-23T12:47:29+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":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prem-narayan-barchhiha-vs-hakimuddin-saifi-on-31-july-1999#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prem-narayan-barchhiha-vs-hakimuddin-saifi-on-31-july-1999"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Prem Narayan Barchhiha vs Hakimuddin Saifi on 31 July, 1999","datePublished":"1999-07-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-01-23T12:47:29+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prem-narayan-barchhiha-vs-hakimuddin-saifi-on-31-july-1999"},"wordCount":2075,"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\/prem-narayan-barchhiha-vs-hakimuddin-saifi-on-31-july-1999#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prem-narayan-barchhiha-vs-hakimuddin-saifi-on-31-july-1999","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prem-narayan-barchhiha-vs-hakimuddin-saifi-on-31-july-1999","name":"Prem Narayan Barchhiha vs Hakimuddin Saifi on 31 July, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1999-07-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-01-23T12:47:29+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prem-narayan-barchhiha-vs-hakimuddin-saifi-on-31-july-1999#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prem-narayan-barchhiha-vs-hakimuddin-saifi-on-31-july-1999"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prem-narayan-barchhiha-vs-hakimuddin-saifi-on-31-july-1999#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Prem Narayan Barchhiha vs Hakimuddin Saifi on 31 July, 1999"}]},{"@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\/70762","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=70762"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/70762\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=70762"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=70762"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=70762"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}