{"id":7446,"date":"2004-02-26T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2004-02-25T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manik-lal-mazumdar-ors-vs-gouranga-chandra-dey-ors-on-26-february-2004"},"modified":"2016-12-02T14:09:04","modified_gmt":"2016-12-02T08:39:04","slug":"manik-lal-mazumdar-ors-vs-gouranga-chandra-dey-ors-on-26-february-2004","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manik-lal-mazumdar-ors-vs-gouranga-chandra-dey-ors-on-26-february-2004","title":{"rendered":"Manik Lal Mazumdar & Ors vs Gouranga Chandra Dey & Ors on 26 February, 2004"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Manik Lal Mazumdar & Ors vs Gouranga Chandra Dey & Ors on 26 February, 2004<\/div>\n
Author: S V Patil<\/div>\n
Bench: Shivaraj V. Patil<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil)  7253 of 2002\n\nPETITIONER:\nManik Lal Mazumdar & Ors.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nGouranga Chandra Dey & Ors.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 26\/02\/2004\n\nBENCH:\nShivaraj V. Patil\t\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
J U D G M E N T<\/p>\n
SHIVARAJ V. PATIL J.\n<\/p>\n
\tFew facts, which are considered necessary and
\nrelevant for disposal of this appeal, in short and
\nsubstance, are the following:\n<\/p>\n
\tThe respondent No. 1 filed a petition for eviction
\nunder Section 12 of The Tripura Buildings (Lease and
\nRent Control) Act, 1975 (for short ‘the Act’) on the
\ngrounds of bona fide requirement and default in payment
\nof rent.  The Rent Control Court held that the claim of
\nbona fide requirement was not proved.  However, it
\nfound that the appellants were defaulters in payment of
\nrent and directed the appellants to hand over the
\npossession of the building in question to the
\nrespondent No. 1.  The appellants filed R.C.C. Appeal
\n4\/1995 under Section 20 of the Act before the Civil
\nJudge (Senior Division), West Tripura against the said
\norder of the Rent Control Court.  The learned Civil
\nJudge, after hearing the parties, dismissed the appeal
\nholding that the appellants failed to deposit the
\narrears of rent as directed by the Rent Control Court
\nand the appeal filed by them without making deposit of
\narrears of rent was not maintainable in view of Section
\n13(1) of the Act.  Thereafter, the appellants filed
\nrevision petition in the court of the District Judge,
\nTripura, assailing the order passed by the learned
\nCivil Judge in appeal.  The learned District Judge
\nallowed the revision petition, set aside the order of
\nthe Civil Judge in appeal and remanded the case to the
\nappellate court for considering the petition for
\nadducing additional evidence and for deciding the
\nappeal afresh.  The respondent No. 1, aggrieved by this
\norder passed in the revision petition, filed a petition
\nas Civil Rule No. 466 of 1997 under Article 227 of the
\nConstitution of India before the Gauhati High Court.  A
\nlearned single Judge of the High Court, after hearing
\nthe parties, finding some conflict in the decisions of
\nthis Court in Chinnamma vs. Gopalan and others  and of
\nDivision Bench of the High Court<\/a> in Binapani Roy & two
\nothers vs. State of Tripura and two others , felt that
\nthe decision of the Division Bench of the High Court in
\nBinapani Roy case required reconsideration by a larger
\nbench to decide the following question: –
\n“Whether in view of Section 13 of the
\nAct, 1975, the appellate Court is
\nprohibited from entertaining an appeal
\nunless the tenant has paid or pays to
\nthe landlord or deposit with the Rent
\nControl Court or the appellant
\nauthority, as the case may be, all
\narrears of rent admitted by the tenant
\nto be due in respect of the building up
\nto the date of payment of deposit and
\ncontinue to pay or deposit any rent
\nwhich may subsequently become due in
\nrespect of the building until
\ntermination of the proceedings before
\nthe Rent Control Court or the appellate
\nauthority, as the case may be?”\n<\/p>\n
The Division Bench of the High Court, after hearing the
\nparties, concluded that the judgment of the Division
\nBench in Binapani Roy case (aforementioned) did not
\nrequire any reconsideration and no reference to a
\nlarger Bench was called for.  It also held that no
\nappeal against the order made under Section 12 of the
\nAct is competent and maintainable under Section 20 of
\nthe Act unless provision of Section 13(1) of the Act is
\ncomplied with; that fulfillment of the requirement of
\nSection 13(1) is a sine qua non for preferring appeal
\nunder Section 20.  Hence, aggrieved by the same, the
\nappellant-tenants have assailed the impugned judgment
\nof the Division Bench of the High Court in this appeal.
\n\tThe learned Senior counsel for the appellants
\ncontended that the High Court was not right and
\njustified in taking a technical view in the matter; as
\nin the case of contesting the proceedings before the
\nRent Controller, opportunity could be given by the
\nappellate court for making payment of admitted rent due
\nor depositing before the appeal is heard; saying that
\nappeal itself could not be preferred without paying or
\ndepositing admitted arrears of rent may not be correct
\nin view of Section 13(3) of the Act; if Section 13 is
\nread as a whole, it will be clear that appeal preferred
\nwithout payment or depositing of admitted arrears of
\nrent, it could not be dismissed.  On the other hand,
\nfurther proceedings in the appeal could be stopped in
\ncase admitted arrears of rent were not paid or
\ndeposited.  He placed reliance on the judgment of this
\nCourt in Chinnamma case (supra).\n<\/p>\n
\tPer contra, the learned counsel for the
\nrespondents-landlord made submissions supporting the
\nimpugned judgment.  It was urged that Section 13(1) in
\nclear and unambiguous terms states that no appeal can
\nbe preferred against any order of Rent Controller
\nwithout paying or depositing of arrears of rent
\nadmitted.\n<\/p>\n
\tBefore proceeding to deal with the respective
\ncontentions urged on behalf of the parties it would be
\nuseful to reproduce the provisions of Sections 12, 13
\nand 20 of the Act to the extent they are relevant for
\nthe immediate purpose: –\n<\/p>\n
“12.\tEviction of tenants  (1) Not-
\nwithstanding anything to the contrary
\ncontained in any other law or contract a
\ntenant shall not be evicted excepted in
\naccordance with the provisions of this
\nAct.\n<\/p>\n
\tProvided that nothing contained in
\nthis section shall apply to a tenant
\nwhose landlord is the State Government
\nor the Central Government or any other
\npublic authority notified under this
\nAct.\n<\/p>\n
\tProvided further that where the
\ntenant denies the title of the landlord
\nor claims right of permanent-tenancy the
\nRent Control Court shall decide whether
\nthe denial or claim is bonafide and if
\nit records a finding to that effect, the
\nlandlord shall be entitled to sue for
\neviction of the tenant in a civil court
\nand such court may pass a decree for
\neviction on any of the grounds mentioned
\nin this section, notwithstanding that
\nsuch court finds that such denial does
\nnot involve forfeiture of the lease or
\nthat the claim is unfounded.\n<\/p>\n
(2)(a)\tA landlord who seeks to evict
\nhis tenant shall apply to the Rent
\nControl Court for a direction in that
\nbehalf.\n<\/p>\n
\t(b) If the Rent Control Court, after
\ngiving the tenant a reasonable
\nopportunity of showing cause against the
\napplication, is satisfied that the
\ntenant has not paid or tendered the rent
\ndue by him in respect of the building
\nwithin fifteen days after the expiry of
\nthe time fixed in the agreement or
\ntenancy with his landlord or in the
\nabsence of any such agreement by the
\nlast day of the month next following
\nthat for which the rent is payable and
\nsuch default has continued for three
\nmonths within a period of twelve months,
\nit shall make an order directing the
\ntenant to put the landlord in possession
\nof the building, and if it is not
\nsatisfied it shall make an order
\nrejecting the application thereof by
\nhim.\n<\/p>\n
\tProvided that an application under
\nthis sub-section shall be made only if
\nthe landlord has sent a registered
\nnotice to the tenant intimating the
\ndefault and the tenant has failed to pay
\nor tender the rent together with
\ninterest at six per cent per annum and
\npostal charges incurred in sending the
\nnotice within fifteen days of the
\nreceipt of the notice or of the receipt
\nof the notice or of the refusal thereof.\n<\/p>\n
\t(c)\tThe order of the Rent Control
\nCourt directing the tenant to put the
\nlandlord in possession of the building
\nshall not be executed before the expiry
\nof one month from the date of such order
\nor such further period as the Rent
\nControl Court may in its discretion
\nallow; and if the tenant deposits the
\narrears of rent with interest and cost
\nof proceedings within the said period of
\none month or such further period, as may
\nbe, it shall vacate that order.”\n<\/p>\n
xxx\t\txxx\t\txxx\t\txxx<\/p>\n
“13. Payment or deposit of rent during
\nthe pendency of proceedings for
\neviction.  No tenant against whom an
\napplication for eviction has been made
\nby a landlord under section 12 shall be
\nentitled to contest the application
\nbefore the Rent Control Court under that
\nsection, or to prefer an appeal under
\nsection 20 against any order made by the
\nRent Control Court on the application,
\nunless he has paid or pays to the
\nlandlord, or deposit with the Rent
\nControl Court or the appellate
\nauthority, as the case may be, all
\narrears of rent admitted by the tenant
\nto be due in respect of the building
\nupto the date of payment of deposit, and
\ncontinues to pay or to deposit any rent
\nwhich may subsequently become due in
\nrespect of the building, until the
\ntermination of the proceedings before
\nthe Rent Control Court or the appellate
\nauthority as the case may be.\n<\/p>\n
(2)\tThe deposit under sub-section
\n(1) shall be made within such time as
\nthe Rent Control Court may fix and in
\nsuch manner as may be prescribed and
\nshall be accompanied by the fee
\nprescribed for the service of notice
\nreferred to in sub-section (4):\n<\/p>\n
\tProvided that the time fixed by the
\nRent Control Court for the deposit of
\nthe arrears of rent shall not be less
\nthan forty-five days from the date of
\nthe order and the time fixed for the
\ndeposit of rent which subsequently
\naccrues due shall not be less than two
\nweeks from the date on which the rent
\nbecome due.\n<\/p>\n
(3)\tIf any tenant fails to pay or to
\ndeposit the rent as aforesaid, the Rent
\nControl Court or the appellate
\nauthority, as the case may be, shall
\nunless the tenant shows sufficient cause
\nto the contrary, stop all further
\nproceedings and make an order directing
\nthe tenant to put the landlord in
\npossession of the building.\n<\/p>\n
(4)\tWhen any deposit is made under
\nsub-section (1), the Rent Control Court
\nor the appellate authority, as the case
\nmay be, shall cause notice of the
\ndeposit to be served on the landlord in
\nthe prescribed manner and the amount
\ndeposited may, subject to such
\nconditions as may be prescribed, be
\nwithdrawn by the landlord on application
\nmade by him to the Rent Control Court or
\nthe appellate authority in that behalf.
\nxxx\t\txxx\t\txxx\t\txxx<\/p>\n
“20. Appeal.  (1) (a) The State
\nGovernment may, by general or special
\norder notified in the Official Gazette,
\nconfer on such officers and authorities
\nnot below the rank of a subordinate
\njudge the powers of appellate
\nauthorities for the purposes of this Act
\nin such classes of cases as may be
\nspecified in the order.\n<\/p>\n
\t(b)\tAny person aggrieved by an order
\npassed by the Rent Control Court may,
\nwithin thirty days from the date of such
\norder, prefer an appeal in writing to
\nthe appellate authority having
\njurisdiction.\n<\/p>\n
\tNote: – In computing the thirty days
\nin this clause, the time taken to obtain
\na certified copy of the order appealed
\nagainst shall be excluded.\n<\/p>\n
\t(2)\tOn such appeal being preferred,
\nthe appellate authority may order stay
\nof further proceedings in the matter
\npending decision on the appeal.\n<\/p>\n
\t(3)\tThe appellate authority shall
\ncall for the record of the case from the
\nRent Control Court and after giving the
\nparties an opportunity of being heard,
\nand if necessary, after making such
\nfurther inquiry as it thinks fit either
\ndirectly or through the Rent Control
\nCourt, shall decide the appeal.\n<\/p>\n
\tExplanation: – The appellate
\nauthority may, while confirming the
\norder of eviction passed by the Rent
\nControl Court grant an extension of time
\nto the tenant for putting the landlord
\nin possession of the building.\n<\/p>\n
\t(4)\tThe appellate authority shall
\nhave all the powers of the Rent Control
\nCourt including the fixing of arrears of
\nrent.\n<\/p>\n
(5)\tThe decision of the appellate
\nauthority, and subject to such decision,
\nan order of the Rent Control Court shall
\nbe final and shall not be liable to be
\ncalled in question in any court of law,
\nexcept as provided in section 22.”\n<\/p>\n
(emphasis supplied)<\/p>\n
\tThe short question that arises for consideration
\nin this appeal is whether an appeal can be preferred
\nunder Section 20 of the Act aggrieved by the order made
\nunder Section 12 of the Act without making the payment
\nor depositing all arrears of rent admitted as required
\nunder Section 13(1) of the Act.  A landlord can seek a
\ndirection to evict his tenant under Section 12 of the
\nAct and the Rent Control Court on being satisfied that
\nthe tenant has not paid or tendered the rent due in
\nrespect of the building shall make an order directing
\nthe tenant to put the landlord in possession of the
\nbuilding and if it is not satisfied it shall make an
\norder rejecting the application.  The order of the Rent
\nControl Court directing the tenant to put the landlord
\nin possession shall not be executed before the expiry
\nof one month from the date of such order or till such
\nfurther period as the Rent Control Court may in its
\ndiscretion allow; and if the tenant deposits the
\narrears of rent with interest and cost of the
\nproceedings within the said period, it shall vacate
\nthat order.\n<\/p>\n
\tSection 13 makes provision for payment or deposit
\nof rent during the pendency of the proceedings for
\neviction.  In this Section it is clearly stated that no
\ntenant against whom an application for eviction has
\nbeen made by a landlord under Section 12 shall be
\nentitled to contest the application before the Rent
\nControl Court under that Section, or to prefer an
\nappeal under Section 20 against any order made by the
\nRent Control Court on the application, unless he has
\npaid or pays the landlord or deposit with the Rent
\nControl Court or the appellate authority, as the case
\nmay be, all arrears of rent admitted by the tenant to
\nbe due in respect of the building up to the date of
\npayment or deposit, and continues to pay or deposit any
\nrent, which may subsequently become due before the Rent
\nControl Court or the appellate authority, as the case
\nmay be.  Under sub-Section (1) of Section 13 two
\nsituations are contemplated  one is contesting the
\napplication before the Rent Control Court and the other
\nis preferring an appeal under Section 20 of the Act.
\nAn embargo is placed on the tenant expressly either to
\ncontest the application under Section 12 before the
\nRent Control Court or to prefer an appeal under Section
\n20 of the Act without payment or deposit of arrears of
\nrent.  The second part of the same sub-Section requires
\nthe tenant to continue to pay or deposit any subsequent
\nrent before the Rent Control Court or the appellate
\nauthority, as the case may be.  From this sub-Section
\nit is clear that a tenant cannot prefer an appeal under
\nSection 20  (1) unless the tenant has paid or pays to
\nthe landlord or deposits the arrears of rent admitted
\nby the tenant to be due in respect of the building and
\n(2) after preferring an appeal he is required to
\ncontinue to pay or deposit subsequent rent before the
\nappellate authority to prosecute the appeal.
\n\tFrom the plain language and clear terms of Section
\n13(1) of the Act it follows that payment or deposit of
\nall arrears of rent admitted by the tenant to be due in
\nrespect of the building up to the date of the payment
\nor deposit is a mandatory requirement for preferring an
\nappeal under Section 20 of the Act.  The said sub-
\nsection declares that no tenant shall be entitled to
\ncontest or to prefer an appeal unless he has paid or
\npays to the landlord or deposits with the Rent Control
\nCourt or the appellate authority, as the case may be.
\nThe use of the words “no” and “unless” in sub-
\nSection (1) of Section 13 in the context makes the
\nposition clear that the payment or deposit of all
\narrears of rent is a pre-requisite essential condition
\nfor preferring an appeal.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe contentions of the learned counsel for the
\nappellants that sub-Section (3) of Section 13 provides
\nopportunity to the tenant to show sufficient cause in
\nregard to failure to pay or deposit the rent both
\nbefore the Rent Control Court and the appellate
\nauthority and by combined reading of Section 13(1) and
\n13(3) it may be construed that there is no bar for
\npreferring an appeal without depositing or paying the
\narrears of rent; the appeal could be preferred but the
\nfurther proceedings could be stopped in the appeal in
\ncase the tenant fails to pay or deposits arrears of
\nrent without any sufficient cause and the appeal being
\nin continuation of the original proceedings, the same
\npowers could be exercised by the appellate authority in
\ngranting time to a tenant to pay or deposit arrears of
\nrent even after preferring an appeal, cannot be
\naccepted.  In the same Section the Legislature
\nconsciously contemplated different situations and
\ndifferent stages in regard to contesting the
\napplication under Section 12 of the Act and preferring
\nan appeal under Section 20 and continuing the
\nproceedings in the appeal after preferring an appeal.
\nSub-Section (1) of Section 13 speaks of payment or
\ndeposit of arrears of rent before preferring an appeal
\nand Sub-Section (3) of the same Section speaks of
\nstopping all further proceedings by the appellate
\nauthority.\n<\/p>\n
\tUnder Section 13(1) a tenant is not entitled to
\ncontest the application unless he has paid or pays to
\nthe landlord or deposits with the Rent Control Court
\nthe arrears of rent.  He cannot prefer an appeal
\nwithout payment or deposit of arrears of rent admitted.
\nSection 13(3) deals with stopping all further
\nproceedings unless the tenant shows sufficient cause
\nfor his failure to pay or deposit the rent.  Stopping
\nof further proceedings would arise only if the
\nproceedings are pending.  Unless an appeal is preferred
\nafter complying the payment of arrears of rent or
\ndeposit of the admitted arrears of rent due, the
\nquestion of either pendency of the appeal or stopping
\nof further proceedings in such appeal does not arise.
\nThere are two separate aspects in regard to an appeal
\none is compliance to be made before preferring an
\nappeal and the other is the tenant has to continue to
\npay or deposit the rent, which may subsequently become
\ndue.  Sub-section (3) of Section 13 will come into
\noperation on the tenant failing to pay or deposit
\nsubsequent arrears of rent arising during the pendency
\nof the appeal, so as to stop further proceedings in the
\nappeal. But, it cannot relieve the statutory compulsion
\nor the mandatory requirement of Section 13(1), viz.,
\npaying or depositing the arrears of admitted rent
\nbefore preferring an appeal. Under Section 20(2) only
\nafter an appeal is preferred under Section 20 after
\ncomplying with Section 13(1), the appellate authority
\nmay stay further proceedings.  Under Sub-section (4) of
\nSection 20, no doubt, the appellate authority shall
\nhave all the powers of the Rent Control Court including
\nthe fixing of arrears of rent.  This sub-section cannot
\nbe read in isolation.  It has to be read along with
\nSub-sections (1) and (3) of Section 13 and Sub-sections
\n(1) and (2) of Section 20.  Under Section 20(4) the
\nappellate authority may have the power of fixing of
\narrears of rent but that is only in relation to arrears
\nof rent that may become subsequently due during the
\npendency of the appeal.\n<\/p>\n
\tPayment or deposit of arrears of admitted rent
\nbefore preferring an appeal under Section 20 is a
\nstatutory requirement as expressly stated in compulsive
\nlanguage under Section 13(1) of the Act and no
\ndiscretion is left to the appellate authority to say
\nthat an appeal could be preferred without satisfying
\npre-condition of deposit or payment of admitted arrears
\nof rent.  Under Section 20(1)(b) any person aggrieved
\nby an order passed by the Rent Control Court may within
\n30 days prefer an appeal.  Under Section 20(2) on such
\nappeal being preferred, the appellate authority may
\norder stay of further proceedings.  The appeal could be
\npreferred only on payment or deposit of arrears of
\nadmitted rent. It also follows that no effective order
\nof stay of further proceedings can be passed by the
\nappellate authority unless an appeal is preferred after
\nsuch payment or deposit of admitted arrears of rent.
\nThis is also a factor to indicate that payment or
\ndeposit of arrears of admitted rent is essential before
\npreferring an appeal.  It is to command a tenant to pay
\nor deposit arrears of admitted rent to protect the
\ninterest of the landlord as in other matters certain
\nprovisions are made to protect the interest of the
\ntenant.  Remedy of appeal is a creation of statute and
\nit is open to the legislature to provide for an appeal
\nsubject to certain conditions.  Insistence of payment
\nor depositing of arrears of rent admitted as stated in
\nSection 13(1) of the Act cannot be diluted or defeated
\nmerely on the ground of hardship to a tenant more so
\nwhen tenant already had one opportunity before the Rent
\nControl Court in regard to making payment or depositing
\narrears of rent. Perhaps it was considered unreasonable
\nor unnecessary to provide again opportunity before
\nAppellate Authority to a tenant that too to pay or
\ndeposit admitted arrears of rent. A Bench of three
\nlearned Judges of this Court in Nasiruddin & Ors. vs.
\nSita Ram Agarwal<\/a>  while dealing with the question of
\ndeposit of arrears of rent and default in depositing
\nthe rent within the given time, in para 35 has
\nexpressed thus:-\n<\/p>\n
“In a case where the
\nstatutory provision is plain
\nand unambiguous, the court
\nshall not interpret the same
\nin a different manner, only
\nbecause of harsh consequences
\narising therefrom.”\n<\/p>\n
Sub-section (4) of Section 20 also does not help the
\nappellants to say that the appellate authority shall
\nhave all powers of Rent Control Court and in that view
\nan appeal could be preferred without payment or deposit
\nof arrears of admitted rent. If it is so read or
\nunderstood, it will dilute or defeat the clear, express
\nand mandatory requirement of Section 13(1). As already
\nnoticed above, in view of the specific provision made
\nin Section 13(1) as regards payment or deposit of
\narrears of admitted rent before preferring an appeal,
\nthe argument based on sub-Section (4) cannot be
\naccepted. Under sub-section (4), the Appellate
\nAuthority may exercise powers of the Rent Controller as
\nregards arrears of rent that may become due after
\npreferring an appeal and during the pendency of it.
\nBut this sub-section cannot render mandatory
\nrequirement under sub-section (1) of Section 13
\nineffective or otiose.  It is well settled principle of
\ninterpretation that every part of the provision has to
\nbe given meaning and effect in the context of a
\nstatute.  When there is express provision made in
\nSection 13(1) in emphatic terms using negative words
\nindicating mandatory requirements of payment or deposit
\nof arrears of admitted rent before preferring an appeal
\nunder Section 20, neither sub-section (3) of Section 13
\nnor sub-Section (4) of Section 20 are of any avail to
\nthe appellants.  This view is supported by a decision
\nof Bench of three learned Judges of this Court in
\nNasiruddin & Ors (supra), which after considering
\nseveral decisions dealing with the provisions of Rent
\nControl Acts of different States, expressed that where
\nstatutory provision is plain and unambiguous, the court
\nshall not interpret the same in a different manner only
\nbecause of harsh consequences arising therefrom; the
\nRent Control Act is a welfare legislation not entirely
\nbeneficial enactment for the tenant but also for the
\nbenefit of the landlord; scope of legislation or its
\nintention cannot be enlarged when the language of the
\nprovision is plain and unambiguous.  In para 37 of the
\nsaid judgment, it is stated thus:\n<\/p>\n
“37.\tThe court’s jurisdiction to
\ninterpret a statute can be invoked when
\nthe same is ambiguous.  It is well known
\nthat in a given case the court can iron
\nout the fabric but it cannot change the
\ntexture of the fabric.  It cannot
\nenlarge the scope of legislation or
\nintention when the language of the
\nprovision is plain and unambiguous.  It
\ncannot add or subtract words to a
\nstatute or read something into it which
\nis not there.  It cannot rewrite or
\nrecast legislation.  It is also
\nnecessary to determine that there exists
\na presumption that the legislature has
\nnot used any superfluous words.  It is
\nwell settled that the real intention of
\nthe legislation must be gathered from
\nthe language used.  It may be true that
\nuse of expression “shall or may” is
\nnot decisive for arriving at a finding
\nas to whether the statute is directory
\nor mandatory.  But the intention of the
\nlegislature must be found out from the
\nscheme of the Act.  It is also equally
\nwell settled that when negative words
\nare used, the courts will presume that
\nthe intention of the legislature was
\nthat the provisions are mandatory in
\ncharacter.”\n<\/p>\n
(emphasis supplied)<\/p>\n
\tIn the same decision, it is also held that where
\nthe statute does not provide either for extension of
\ntime or condone the default in depositing the rent
\nwithin the stipulated period, the court does not have
\nthe power to do so.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn E.Palanisamy vs. Palanisamy (Dead)<\/a> by Lrs. &
\nOrs. , this Court has taken the view that benefits
\nconferred by statutory provisions can be enjoyed only
\nif such provisions are strictly complied with and
\nprocedure prescribed is followed step by step.  Para 5
\nof the said judgment reads: –\n<\/p>\n
“5.\tMr. Sampath, the learned counsel
\nfor the appellant argued that since the
\nappellant tenant had deposited the
\narrear of rent in court, it should be
\ntaken as compliance with Section 8 of
\nthe Act.  This would mean there is no
\ndefault on the part of tenant in payment
\nof rent and therefore, no eviction order
\ncould have been passed against the
\nappellant on that ground.  According to
\nthe learned counsel, the court should
\nnot take a technical view of the matter
\nand should appreciate that it was on
\naccount of refusal of the landlords to
\naccept the rent sent by way of money
\norders that the tenant was driven to
\nmove the court for permission to deposit
\nthe arrears of rent.  Since there is a
\nsubstantial compliance with Section 8
\ninasmuch as the arrears of rent stand
\ndeposited in court, a strict or
\ntechnical view ought not to have been
\ntaken by the High Court.  We are unable
\nto accept this contention advanced on
\nbehalf of the appellant by the learned
\ncounsel.  The rent legislation is
\nnormally intended for the benefit of the
\ntenants.  At the same time, it is well
\nsettled that the benefits conferred on
\nthe tenants through the relevant
\nstatutes can be enjoyed only on the
\nbasis of strict compliance with the
\nstatutory provisions.  Equitable
\nconsideration has no place in such
\nmatters.  The statute contains express
\nprovisions.  It prescribes various steps
\nwhich a tenant is required to take.  In
\nSection 8 of the Act, the procedure to
\nbe followed by the tenant is given step
\nby step.  An earlier step is a pre-\n<\/p>\n
condition for the next step.  The tenant
\nhas to observe the procedure as
\nprescribed in the statute.  A strict
\ncompliance with the procedure is
\nnecessary.  The tenant cannot straight
\naway jump to the last step i.e. to
\ndeposit rent in court.  The last step
\ncan come only after the earlier steps
\nhave been taken by the tenant.  We are
\nfortified in this view by the decisions
\nof this Court in Kuldeep Singh vs.
\nGanpat Lal<\/a> [(1996) 1 SCC 243] and M.
\nBhaskar vs. J.Venkatarama Naidu<\/a> [(1996)
\n6 SCC 228].”\n<\/p>\n
\tThis Court in Union of India & Ors. vs. Filip
\nTiago De Gama of Vedem Vasco De Gama<\/a>  opined that the
\nparamount object in statutory interpretation is to
\ndiscover what the legislature intended.  Such intention
\nis primarily to be ascertained from the text of an
\nenactment in question and if the strict grammatical
\ninterpretation gives rise to absurdity or
\ninconsistency, the court could discard such
\ninterpretation and adopt an interpretation, which will
\ngive effect to the purpose of legislation.  In the case
\non hand, no such anomaly, absurdity or inconsistency
\nwould arise even if plain and grammatical
\ninterpretation is given to Section 13(1) of the Act
\ninsisting to pay or deposit all the arrears of rent
\nadmitted before preferring an appeal under Section 20
\nof the Act.\n<\/p>\n
\tYet again in Bhavnagar University vs. Palitana
\nSugar Mill (P) Ltd. & Ors.<\/a> , a bench of three leaned
\nJudges of this Court in para 25 has observed that
\n“scope of the legislation on the intention of the
\nlegislature cannot be enlarged when the language of the
\nprovision is plain and unambiguous. In other words,
\nstatutory enactment must ordinarily be construed
\naccording to its plain meaning and no words shall be
\nadded, altered or modified unless it is plainly
\nnecessary to do so to prevent a provision from being
\nunintelligible, absurd, unreasonable, unworkable or
\ntotally irreconcilable with the rest of the statute.”\n<\/p>\n
\tJudged by what is stated above, it cannot be said
\nthat the provisions of Sections 13 and 20 of the Act
\nare irreconcilable, unintelligible or absurd so as not
\nto give effect to plain language of Section 13(1)
\nrequiring a tenant to pay or deposit arrears of
\nadmitted rent before preferring an appeal under Section
\n20 of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe decision of this Court in the case of
\nChinnamma (supra) does not advance the case of the
\nappellants for the reasons more than one.  That was a
\ncase wherein the question, which has arisen in this
\nappeal neither arose nor decided.  No doubt, the
\nprovisions 11 and 12 of Kerala Building (Lease and Rent
\nControl) Act, 1965 and Sections 12 and 13 of the Act
\nare similar but the question decided in that case is
\naltogether different, as is evident from paragraph 4 of
\nthe said judgment, which reads: –\n<\/p>\n
“4. We heard counsel. The short
\nquestion that arises for our
\nconsideration is what is the amount that
\nshould be deposited by the tenant under
\nSection 11(2)(c) of the Act to set aside
\nthe order passed under Section 11(2)(b)
\nof the Act. Should the deposit be only
\nof that amount which was specified as
\npayable in the order of eviction passed
\nunder Section 11(2)(b) of the Act or
\nwill it take within its fold even the
\narrears of rent that accrued due
\nsubsequent to the said order of eviction
\nand up to the date of deposit? The Rent
\nController passed the order of eviction
\non 22-2-1980. He held that in case the
\ntenant deposits a sum of Rs. 540 which
\nis the arrears of rent due as on 1-2-
\n1980 along with the advocate’s fee Rs.
\n25 and interest at the rate of 6% per
\nannum on arrears of Rs. 540, the tenant
\nwill be entitled to get the order of
\neviction vacated under Section 11(2)(c)
\nof the Act. The learned District Judge
\nhas found that the amount of Rs. 750
\nwill cover the amount quantified
\nspecifically by the Rent Controller in
\nthe order dated 22-2-1980. The deposit
\nmade along with the application filed
\nunder Section 11(2)(c) of the Act –
\ncomplied with the order dated 22-2-1980.
\nReally, no other point arose for
\nconsideration on the facts of this case,
\nat that stage. But the learned Single
\nJudge of the High Court held that
\ndeposit to be made by the tenant should
\nalso include the arrears of rent that
\naccrued due subsequent to the order of
\neviction dated 22-2-1980 and should
\ninclude the dues till the date of
\ndeposit, i.e., 6-4-1982. The question is
\nwhether the view so expressed by the
\nlearned Single Judge is in accord with
\nSection 11(2)(c) and the Scheme of the
\nAct?”\n<\/p>\n
\tIn paragraph 7 of the same judgment, this Court
\nhas expressed that a mere look at Sections 11 and 12 of
\nthe Kerala Act would show that they operate in
\ndifferent situations.  Under Section 11(2)(b) the court
\npasses a final order of eviction directing the tenant
\nto put the landlord in possession of the building, if
\nthere is a default as provided therein.  The execution
\nof such final order is statutorily suspended for a
\nperiod of one month.  Within that time or such further
\ntime, as the court may allow, the tenant is given an
\nopportunity to pay or deposit the arrears of rent with
\ninterest and cost and, if payment or deposit is made,
\nthe court shall vacate the order.  Whereas the
\nprovisions of Section 12 are applicable during the
\npendency of the proceedings for eviction.  In the same
\nparagraph it is made clear that for the applicability
\nof Section 12 the proceedings for eviction should be
\npending.\n<\/p>\n
\tHence the said judgment, having regard to the
\nfacts of that case and the question that was decided,
\ndoes not support the contention urged on behalf of the
\nappellants in this appeal.  Even the judgment of the
\nDivision Bench of Gauhati High Court in Binapani Roy
\ncase, aforementioned, in a way supports the case of the
\nrespondents.\n<\/p>\n
 \tThe Division Bench of the High Court was right in
\nholding that there was no conflict in the judgments in
\ncases of Chinnamma and Binapani Roy.
\n\tIn view of the discussion made and reasons stated,
\nthe question set out above is answered in the negative
\nmeaning thereby payment or deposit of all arrears of
\nrent admitted is mandatory before preferring an appeal
\nby a tenant under Section 20 of the Act.  Hence, the
\nappeal is dismissed finding no merit in it, with no
\norder as to costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Manik Lal Mazumdar & Ors vs Gouranga Chandra Dey & Ors on 26 February, 2004 Author: S V Patil Bench: Shivaraj V. Patil CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 7253 of 2002 PETITIONER: Manik Lal Mazumdar & Ors. RESPONDENT: Gouranga Chandra Dey & Ors. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 26\/02\/2004 BENCH: Shivaraj V. Patil JUDGMENT: […]<\/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-7446","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nManik Lal Mazumdar & Ors vs Gouranga Chandra Dey & Ors on 26 February, 2004 - 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\/manik-lal-mazumdar-ors-vs-gouranga-chandra-dey-ors-on-26-february-2004\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Manik Lal Mazumdar & Ors vs Gouranga Chandra Dey & Ors on 26 February, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manik-lal-mazumdar-ors-vs-gouranga-chandra-dey-ors-on-26-february-2004\" \/>\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=\"2004-02-25T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-12-02T08:39:04+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=\"28 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/manik-lal-mazumdar-ors-vs-gouranga-chandra-dey-ors-on-26-february-2004#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/manik-lal-mazumdar-ors-vs-gouranga-chandra-dey-ors-on-26-february-2004\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Manik Lal Mazumdar & Ors vs Gouranga Chandra Dey & Ors on 26 February, 2004\",\"datePublished\":\"2004-02-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-12-02T08:39:04+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/manik-lal-mazumdar-ors-vs-gouranga-chandra-dey-ors-on-26-february-2004\"},\"wordCount\":5496,\"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\\\/manik-lal-mazumdar-ors-vs-gouranga-chandra-dey-ors-on-26-february-2004#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/manik-lal-mazumdar-ors-vs-gouranga-chandra-dey-ors-on-26-february-2004\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/manik-lal-mazumdar-ors-vs-gouranga-chandra-dey-ors-on-26-february-2004\",\"name\":\"Manik Lal Mazumdar & Ors vs Gouranga Chandra Dey & Ors on 26 February, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2004-02-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-12-02T08:39:04+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/manik-lal-mazumdar-ors-vs-gouranga-chandra-dey-ors-on-26-february-2004#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/manik-lal-mazumdar-ors-vs-gouranga-chandra-dey-ors-on-26-february-2004\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/manik-lal-mazumdar-ors-vs-gouranga-chandra-dey-ors-on-26-february-2004#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Manik Lal Mazumdar & Ors vs Gouranga Chandra Dey & Ors on 26 February, 2004\"}]},{\"@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":"Manik Lal Mazumdar & Ors vs Gouranga Chandra Dey & Ors on 26 February, 2004 - 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\/manik-lal-mazumdar-ors-vs-gouranga-chandra-dey-ors-on-26-february-2004","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Manik Lal Mazumdar & Ors vs Gouranga Chandra Dey & Ors on 26 February, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manik-lal-mazumdar-ors-vs-gouranga-chandra-dey-ors-on-26-february-2004","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2004-02-25T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-12-02T08:39:04+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":"28 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manik-lal-mazumdar-ors-vs-gouranga-chandra-dey-ors-on-26-february-2004#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manik-lal-mazumdar-ors-vs-gouranga-chandra-dey-ors-on-26-february-2004"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Manik Lal Mazumdar & Ors vs Gouranga Chandra Dey & Ors on 26 February, 2004","datePublished":"2004-02-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-12-02T08:39:04+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manik-lal-mazumdar-ors-vs-gouranga-chandra-dey-ors-on-26-february-2004"},"wordCount":5496,"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\/manik-lal-mazumdar-ors-vs-gouranga-chandra-dey-ors-on-26-february-2004#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manik-lal-mazumdar-ors-vs-gouranga-chandra-dey-ors-on-26-february-2004","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manik-lal-mazumdar-ors-vs-gouranga-chandra-dey-ors-on-26-february-2004","name":"Manik Lal Mazumdar & Ors vs Gouranga Chandra Dey & Ors on 26 February, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2004-02-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-12-02T08:39:04+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manik-lal-mazumdar-ors-vs-gouranga-chandra-dey-ors-on-26-february-2004#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manik-lal-mazumdar-ors-vs-gouranga-chandra-dey-ors-on-26-february-2004"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manik-lal-mazumdar-ors-vs-gouranga-chandra-dey-ors-on-26-february-2004#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Manik Lal Mazumdar & Ors vs Gouranga Chandra Dey & Ors on 26 February, 2004"}]},{"@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\/7446","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=7446"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7446\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=7446"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=7446"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=7446"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}