{"id":74661,"date":"2009-06-08T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-06-07T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thayyil-mohammad-haji-vs-abdul-mateen-on-8-june-2009"},"modified":"2016-12-12T22:44:14","modified_gmt":"2016-12-12T17:14:14","slug":"thayyil-mohammad-haji-vs-abdul-mateen-on-8-june-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thayyil-mohammad-haji-vs-abdul-mateen-on-8-june-2009","title":{"rendered":"Thayyil Mohammad Haji vs Abdul Mateen on 8 June, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Thayyil Mohammad Haji vs Abdul Mateen on 8 June, 2009<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nRCRev..No. 247 of 2008()\n\n\n1. THAYYIL MOHAMMAD HAJI\n                      ...  Petitioner\n2. KOTTATHARA VALIYAKATH ABDUL AZEEZ\n3. PUNNASSERI HYDER HAJI\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. ABDUL MATEEN, AGED 50 YEARS\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. SEEMA SUHAIL, AGED 48 YEARS\n\n3. BEEBI FATHIMA ISMAIL,AGED 69 YEARS\n\n4. MUHAMMAD SUHAIL ISMAIL, AGED 57 YEARS\n\n5. SAMIHA, AGED 47 YEARS\n\n6. SAMEENA, AGED 46 YEARS\n\n7. ABDUL MAJEED, AGED 49 YEARS\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.V.SREENATH\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.AVM.SALAHUDIN\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice P.Q.BARKATH ALI\n\n Dated :08\/06\/2009\n\n O R D E R\n               PIUS C. KURIAKOSE &\n               P. Q. BARKATH ALI, JJ.\n           ------------------------------------------------\n                   R. C. R. No.247 of 2008\n           ------------------------------------------------\n             Dated this the 8th day of June, 2009\n\n                             ORDER\n<\/pre>\n
Pius C. Kuriakose, J<\/p>\n
     Under challenge in this revision initiated at the<\/p>\n
instance of the tenants is an order of eviction passed<\/p>\n
under Section 11(2)(b) concurrently by the Rent<\/p>\n
Control Court and the Appellate Authority. Parties are<\/p>\n
referred to as landlord and tenant respectively.<\/p>\n
     2. The allegation of the landlord as stated in the<\/p>\n
Rent Control Petition was that rent at the rate of<\/p>\n
Rs.5,250\/- per mensm is in arrears with effect from<\/p>\n
01\/01\/2000. The tenant who is conducting a lodging<\/p>\n
house in the petition schedule building did not dispute<\/p>\n
the contract rent. The contention prominently raised<\/p>\n
was that he has expended a total amount of<\/p>\n
R. C. R. No.247 of 2008          -2-<\/span><\/p>\n
      Rs.3,92,793\/- towards repairs of this building. Ext.B4<\/p>\n
      agreement executed between the parties (the landlord<\/p>\n
      being represented by his duly constituted power of<\/p>\n
      attorney holder) was relied on in support of the above<\/p>\n
      contention. Apart from Ext.B4, the tenant produced<\/p>\n
      vouchers Exts.B5 to B108 to show that he had<\/p>\n
      expended amounts towards repairing the building.<\/p>\n
      Initially, the landlord’s case in answer to Exts.B5 to<\/p>\n
      B108 was that Ext.B4 is not binding on him inasmuch<\/p>\n
      as he has not authorised his power of attorney holder<\/p>\n
      to enter into Ext.B4 on his behalf. He also denied the<\/p>\n
      tenants’ contention that amounts were expended<\/p>\n
      against Exts.B5 to B108. The Rent Control Court on<\/p>\n
      evaluating the evidence would repel the landlord’s<\/p>\n
      case that Ext.B4 is not binding on him. It was found<\/p>\n
R. C. R. No.247 of 2008         -3-<\/span><\/p>\n
      that Ext.B4 was executed on behalf of the landlord by<\/p>\n
      his duly constituted power of attorney holder. Never-<\/p>\n
      the-less, the court below did not become inclined to<\/p>\n
      accept the tenants’ case that amounts were expended<\/p>\n
      under Exts.B5 to B108 pursuant to Ext.B4. The Rent<\/p>\n
      Control Court found that there was no evidence to<\/p>\n
      show that the landlord had been requested by the<\/p>\n
      tenant to carry out the repairs. The Rent Control Court<\/p>\n
      also found that the question whether the tenant had<\/p>\n
      expended so much of amounts against Exts.B5 and<\/p>\n
      B108 is capable of being proved by producing the<\/p>\n
      account books which were being maintained by the<\/p>\n
      tenant who was running a lodging house. The<\/p>\n
      Appellate Authority also would substantially endorse<\/p>\n
      the findings of the Rent Control Court in this regard<\/p>\n
R. C. R. No.247 of 2008          -4-<\/span><\/p>\n
      and dismiss the appeal preferred by the tenant.<\/p>\n
            3.   We    have   heard   the   submissions     of<\/p>\n
      Sri.V.Sreenath, learned counsel for the revision<\/p>\n
      petitioners and those of Sri.A.V.M.Salahudin, the<\/p>\n
      learned counsel for the landlord.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
            4. Sri.V.Sreenath would assail the findings of the<\/p>\n
      Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority very<\/p>\n
      forcefully. He submitted that the Rent Control Court<\/p>\n
      having found that Ext.B4 was an agreement duly<\/p>\n
      entered into on behalf of the landlord was not justified<\/p>\n
      in denying the tenants’ case of having expended<\/p>\n
      amounts against Exts.B5 to B108. The genuineness of<\/p>\n
      Exts.B5 to B108 was beyond question, according to<\/p>\n
      Sri.V.Sreenath, the learned counsel for the tenants.<\/p>\n
            5. Sri.A.V.M.Salahudin, the learned counsel for<\/p>\n
R. C. R. No.247 of 2008         -5-<\/span><\/p>\n
      the landlord would submit that this Court sitting in<\/p>\n
      revision under Section 20 of Act 2 of 1965 is not<\/p>\n
      expected to reappraise the evidence and substitute the<\/p>\n
      conclusions of fact already entered into by the fact<\/p>\n
      finding authorities under the statutes for its own<\/p>\n
      finding. According to him, the building in question, has<\/p>\n
      got as many as 34 rooms and the tenant is making a<\/p>\n
      fortune out of the building without caring to pay even<\/p>\n
      the paltry monthly rent agreed upon during the past<\/p>\n
      nine years.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
            6. We have anxiously considered the rival<\/p>\n
      submissions. We do not find reason to disapprove the<\/p>\n
      findings of the Rent Control Court and the Appellate<\/p>\n
      Authority that Ext.B4 was duly entered into on behalf<\/p>\n
      of the landlord also by his duly constituted power of<\/p>\n
R. C. R. No.247 of 2008         -6-<\/span><\/p>\n
      attorney holder. But at the same time, we find that<\/p>\n
      Ext.B4 was entered into between the parties at a time<\/p>\n
      when the statutory authority, the Accommodation<\/p>\n
      Controller was seizing of an application submitted by<\/p>\n
      the tenants under Section 17 of Act 2 of 1965. The<\/p>\n
      reason mentioned in Ext.B4 for entering into Ext.B4 is<\/p>\n
      the long pendency of the proceedings before the<\/p>\n
      Accommodation Controller and one of the important<\/p>\n
      provisions in Ext.B4 is that the Accommodation<\/p>\n
      Controller will be informed of Ext.B4 by both the<\/p>\n
      parties   by   producing   the   same    before   the<\/p>\n
      Accommodation Controller and by filing a joint<\/p>\n
      statement. Admittedly the Accommodation Controller<\/p>\n
      was never informed about Ext.B4 and the fiat of the<\/p>\n
      Accommodation Controller, the statutory authority has<\/p>\n
R. C. R. No.247 of 2008          -7-<\/span><\/p>\n
      not been obtained by the parties to Ext.B4.<\/p>\n
            7. Leaving that alone, the important question to<\/p>\n
      be considered is whether the contention of the<\/p>\n
      petitioner  that   he  has    expended    Rs.3,92,793\/-<\/p>\n
      towards repairing the building pursuant to Ext.B4 is<\/p>\n
      true. Sri.V.Sreenath, the learned counsel for the<\/p>\n
      revision petitioners would fairly concede before us that<\/p>\n
      the total amount expended by the tenants-petitioners<\/p>\n
      pursuant to Ext.B4 is only Rs.1,91,000\/- and not<\/p>\n
      Rs.3,92,793\/- as claimed by the revision petitioners.<\/p>\n
      He also agreed that on the terms of Ext.B4, it is the<\/p>\n
      obligation of the tenant to bear 50% of the amount<\/p>\n
      amounting to Rs.95,500\/-. Even if the petitioners’ case<\/p>\n
      that   they   have   expended     Rs.95,500\/-  towards<\/p>\n
      repairing the building pursuant to Ext.B4 is accepted,<\/p>\n
R. C. R. No.247 of 2008           -8-<\/span><\/p>\n
      then also it is evident that as on the date of filing of<\/p>\n
      the Rent Control Petition, rent was in arrears, which<\/p>\n
      means an order of eviction under Section 11(2)(b) was<\/p>\n
      inevitable. Now the Rent Control Court and the<\/p>\n
      Appellate Authority have concurrently found that it is<\/p>\n
      difficult to accept the case of the petitioners of having<\/p>\n
      expended amounts on the basis of Exts.B5 to B108<\/p>\n
      pursuant to Ext.B4. The reasons stated by the<\/p>\n
      authorities is that Exts.B5 to B108 are mere vouchers<\/p>\n
      and if those vouchers are genuine vouchers then it will<\/p>\n
      definitely find a place in the account books maintained<\/p>\n
      by the tenants or in the report by the Advocate<\/p>\n
      Commissioner. The above reason, according to us, is<\/p>\n
      reasonable. We, sitting in revisional jurisdiction under<\/p>\n
      Section 20 of Act 2 of 1965, are not expected to<\/p>\n
R. C. R. No.247 of 2008          -9-<\/span><\/p>\n
      interfere with the findings entered into concurrently by<\/p>\n
      both the courts below when they are reasonable and<\/p>\n
      founded on evidence.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
            8. Having gone through the contours of this<\/p>\n
      Court’s jurisdiction under Section 20 of Act 2 of 1965,<\/p>\n
      we do not find any warrant for interference. We<\/p>\n
      hereby confirm the order of eviction passed under<\/p>\n
      Section 11(2)(b) of Act 2 of 1965 by the courts below.<\/p>\n
            9. It is finally submitted by Sri.V.Sreenath, the<\/p>\n
      learned counsel for the petitioners that the entire<\/p>\n
      arrears of rent due in respect of petition schedule<\/p>\n
      building is in deposit before the Rent Control Court.<\/p>\n
      The counsel requested that the above deposit be<\/p>\n
      noticed and the order of eviction under Section 11(2)<\/p>\n
      (b) be set aside under Section 11(2)(c).<\/p>\n
R. C. R. No.247 of 2008         -10-<\/span><\/p>\n
            10. Sri.A.V.M.Salahudin, the learned counsel for<\/p>\n
      the respondents\/landlord would submit that the<\/p>\n
      amount deposited will not cover the entire amount<\/p>\n
      actually due. We are of the view that the sufficiency of<\/p>\n
      the amount under deposit is a matter to be decided by<\/p>\n
      the Rent Control Court in a proceeding under Section<\/p>\n
      11(2)(c)    to    be   initiated   by   the     revision<\/p>\n
      petitioner\/tenant.   Therefore,  even    as   we    are<\/p>\n
      dismissing the revision confirming the order of eviction<\/p>\n
      passed by the Rent Control Court and the Appellate<\/p>\n
      Authority, we permit the revision petitioner to file a<\/p>\n
      petitioner under Section 11(2)(c) before the Rent<\/p>\n
      Control Court. The Rent Control Court will in that<\/p>\n
      proceeding pass appropriate orders deciding the<\/p>\n
      correct amount to be deposited\/paid by the revision<\/p>\n
R. C. R. No.247 of 2008         -11-<\/span><\/p>\n
      petitioners\/tenants to have the order of eviction set<\/p>\n
      aside under Section 11(2)(c).\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
            11.   This  RCR    is   dismissed,   but in  the<\/p>\n
      circumstances, without any order as to costs. It is<\/p>\n
      needless to mention that the amount under deposit is<\/p>\n
      due to the landlord who is entitled to withdraw the<\/p>\n
      same. If for any reason the Rent Control Court finds<\/p>\n
      that the amounts under deposit are not sufficient that<\/p>\n
      court will grant at least two months’ time to the<\/p>\n
      revision petitioner to deposit the deficit.<\/p>\n
                                          PIUS C. KURIAKOSE
\n                                                      JUDGE<\/p>\n
                                          P. Q. BARKATH ALI
\n                                                      JUDGE
\n      kns\/-<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Thayyil Mohammad Haji vs Abdul Mateen on 8 June, 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM RCRev..No. 247 of 2008() 1. THAYYIL MOHAMMAD HAJI … Petitioner 2. KOTTATHARA VALIYAKATH ABDUL AZEEZ 3. PUNNASSERI HYDER HAJI Vs 1. ABDUL MATEEN, AGED 50 YEARS … Respondent 2. SEEMA SUHAIL, AGED 48 YEARS […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-74661","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nThayyil Mohammad Haji vs Abdul Mateen on 8 June, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thayyil-mohammad-haji-vs-abdul-mateen-on-8-june-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Thayyil Mohammad Haji vs Abdul Mateen on 8 June, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thayyil-mohammad-haji-vs-abdul-mateen-on-8-june-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2009-06-07T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-12-12T17:14:14+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/thayyil-mohammad-haji-vs-abdul-mateen-on-8-june-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/thayyil-mohammad-haji-vs-abdul-mateen-on-8-june-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Thayyil Mohammad Haji vs Abdul Mateen on 8 June, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-06-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-12-12T17:14:14+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/thayyil-mohammad-haji-vs-abdul-mateen-on-8-june-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1446,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Kerala High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/thayyil-mohammad-haji-vs-abdul-mateen-on-8-june-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/thayyil-mohammad-haji-vs-abdul-mateen-on-8-june-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/thayyil-mohammad-haji-vs-abdul-mateen-on-8-june-2009\",\"name\":\"Thayyil Mohammad Haji vs Abdul Mateen on 8 June, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-06-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-12-12T17:14:14+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/thayyil-mohammad-haji-vs-abdul-mateen-on-8-june-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/thayyil-mohammad-haji-vs-abdul-mateen-on-8-june-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/thayyil-mohammad-haji-vs-abdul-mateen-on-8-june-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Thayyil Mohammad Haji vs Abdul Mateen on 8 June, 2009\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Thayyil Mohammad Haji vs Abdul Mateen on 8 June, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thayyil-mohammad-haji-vs-abdul-mateen-on-8-june-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Thayyil Mohammad Haji vs Abdul Mateen on 8 June, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thayyil-mohammad-haji-vs-abdul-mateen-on-8-june-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-06-07T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-12-12T17:14:14+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thayyil-mohammad-haji-vs-abdul-mateen-on-8-june-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thayyil-mohammad-haji-vs-abdul-mateen-on-8-june-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Thayyil Mohammad Haji vs Abdul Mateen on 8 June, 2009","datePublished":"2009-06-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-12-12T17:14:14+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thayyil-mohammad-haji-vs-abdul-mateen-on-8-june-2009"},"wordCount":1446,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Kerala High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thayyil-mohammad-haji-vs-abdul-mateen-on-8-june-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thayyil-mohammad-haji-vs-abdul-mateen-on-8-june-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thayyil-mohammad-haji-vs-abdul-mateen-on-8-june-2009","name":"Thayyil Mohammad Haji vs Abdul Mateen on 8 June, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-06-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-12-12T17:14:14+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thayyil-mohammad-haji-vs-abdul-mateen-on-8-june-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thayyil-mohammad-haji-vs-abdul-mateen-on-8-june-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thayyil-mohammad-haji-vs-abdul-mateen-on-8-june-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Thayyil Mohammad Haji vs Abdul Mateen on 8 June, 2009"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/74661","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=74661"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/74661\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=74661"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=74661"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=74661"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}