{"id":75648,"date":"1975-08-29T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1975-08-28T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gajanan-dattatraya-vs-sherbanu-hosang-patel-ors-on-29-august-1975"},"modified":"2018-05-04T08:17:40","modified_gmt":"2018-05-04T02:47:40","slug":"gajanan-dattatraya-vs-sherbanu-hosang-patel-ors-on-29-august-1975","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gajanan-dattatraya-vs-sherbanu-hosang-patel-ors-on-29-august-1975","title":{"rendered":"Gajanan Dattatraya vs Sherbanu Hosang Patel &amp; Ors on 29 August, 1975"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Gajanan Dattatraya vs Sherbanu Hosang Patel &amp; Ors on 29 August, 1975<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_citations\">Equivalent citations: 1975 AIR 2156, \t\t  1976 SCR  (1) 535<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: A Ray<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: Ray, A.N. (Cj)<\/div>\n<pre>           PETITIONER:\nGAJANAN DATTATRAYA\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSHERBANU HOSANG PATEL &amp; ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT29\/08\/1975\n\nBENCH:\nRAY, A.N. (CJ)\nBENCH:\nRAY, A.N. (CJ)\nMATHEW, KUTTYIL KURIEN\nCHANDRACHUD, Y.V.\n\nCITATION:\n 1975 AIR 2156\t\t  1976 SCR  (1) 535\n 1975 SCC  (2) 668\n CITATOR INFO :\n RF\t    1987 SC2220\t (16)\n RF\t    1990 SC 879\t (4,6)\n R\t    1991 SC1040\t (3)\n\n\nACT:\n     Bombay Rents,  Hotel &amp;  Lodging House Rates Control Act\n1947-Section 13(1)(e)  -Subletting  a  ground  for  eviction\nwhether must  continue on the date of institution of suit or\nwhether\t sufficient   if  exists   on  the  date  of  notice\nterminating tenancy.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n     The respondent-landlord  filled  a\t suit  for  eviction\nagainst\t the   appellant-tenant\t on   the  ground  that\t the\nappellant had  sublet a\t portion of  the premises. The trial\ncourt and  the First  Appellate Court came to the conclusion\nthat on the date when the notice terminating the tenancy was\nserved on  the appellant,  he did, in fact, sublet a portion\nof the\tsuit premises.\tThe courts,  however,  came  to\t the\nconclusion that\t on the\t date when the respondent instituted\nthe eviction  suit the\tsub letting  had ceased.  The  trial\ncourt and  the lower  appellate court  granted a  decree  of\neviction in  favour of\tthe respondent.\t A revision filed by\nthe appellant  before the  High Court  also failed.  Section\n13(1)(e) of the Bombay Rents Act makes a ground of eviction,\n\"that the  tenant has,\tsince the  coming into operation of'\nthis Act, unlawfully sublet.. \"\n     On appeal\tby special  leave, it  was contended  by the\nappellant that the expression \"has sublet\" pre-supposes that\nsubletting must continue till the date of the institution of\nthe suit.\n Dismissing the appeal.\n^\n     HELD: (1)\tThe tenant  is disentitled to any protection\nunder the  Bombay Rent\tAct if\the is within the mischief of\nthe provisions\tof s.  13(1)(e). To accede to the contention\nof the\tappellant would\t mean that  a tenant  would  not  be\nwithin the  mischief of\t unlawful subletting  if  after\t the\nlandlord gives\ta notice  terminating  the  tenancy  on\t the\nground of  unlawful subletting\tthe sub-tenant\tvacates. The\nlandlord will  not be  able to\tget any\t relief against\t the\ntenant in  spite of  unlawful subletting.  In that  way\t the\ntenant can foil the attempt of landlord to obtain possession\nof the\tPremises on  the ground\t of subletting every time by\ngetting the sub-tenant to vacate the premises. [538-D]\n     (2) The  tenant's liability to eviction arises when the\nfact of\t unlawful subletting  is proved.  At the date of the\nnotice if  it is  proved that there was unlawful subletting,\nthe tenant is liable to be evicted. [538-D]\n     Maganlal Narandas\tThakkar &amp;  Anr. v. Arjun BhanjiKanbi\n[969]G.L.R. Vol.  10 p.\t 627  <a href=\"\/doc\/1269741\/\">Goppulal\tv.  Thakurji  Shriji\nShriji\tDwarkadheeshji\t &amp;  Anr.<\/a>   [1969]  3   S.C.R.\t989,\ndistinguished.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>     CIVIL APPELLATE  JURISDICTION:Civil Appeal\t No. 591  of<br \/>\n1974.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Appeal by\tSpecial Leave  from the\t Judgment and  order<br \/>\ndated the  15th February,  1974 of the Gujarat High Court in<br \/>\nCivil Revision Appln. No. 326\/71.\n<\/p>\n<p>     P. H. Parekh and Manju Jaitley, for the appellant.<br \/>\n     S. S. Khanduja and R. N. Bhalgoha, for respondents 2-4.<br \/>\n     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by<br \/>\n     RAY, C.J.-This  appeal is\tby special  leave  from\t the<br \/>\njudgment dated\t15 February,  1974 of the Gujarat High Court<br \/>\ndismissing the revision petition filed by the appellant.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">536<\/span><\/p>\n<p>     The appellant  filed a  Revision Petition\tin the\tHigh<br \/>\nCourt against\t the  judgment\tand  decree  passed  by\t the<br \/>\nDistrict Judge\tdismissing his appeal against the decree for<br \/>\neviction of the appellant from the suit premises.\n<\/p>\n<p>     The respondent filed the suit against the appellant for<br \/>\npossession of  the premises on the ground that the appellant<br \/>\nhad sublet a portion of the premises.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Section 13(1)  (e) of  the Bombay\tRents, &amp;  Hotel\t and<br \/>\nLodging House  r  Rates\t Control  Act,\t1947  which  is\t the<br \/>\nrelevant section  for the  purpose of  this appeal  runs  as<br \/>\nfollows :\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>\t  &#8220;13(1)(e) That  the tenant  has, since  the coming<br \/>\n     into operation o this Act, unlawfully sublet, or after<br \/>\n     the date  of Cr commencement of the Bombay Rents, Hotel<br \/>\n     and Lodging  House Rates Control (Amendment) Act, 1973,<br \/>\n     unlawfully given  on licence,  the whole or part of the<br \/>\n     premises or assigned or transferred in any other manner<br \/>\n     his interest therein&#8221;.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>     The appellant  took on  lease on  1 January,  1960\t the<br \/>\npremises, namely,  first floor consisting of four rooms at a<br \/>\nrent of Rs. 50\/- per month.\n<\/p>\n<p>     The respondent  alleged that  the\tappellant  sublet  a<br \/>\nportion thereof,  namely, two rooms, in the month of August,<br \/>\n1965. The  respondent on  1 April, 1967 gave a notice to the<br \/>\nappellant terminating the tenancy.\n<\/p>\n<p>     The  appellant  denied  that  there  was  any  unlawful<br \/>\nsubletting  of\ttwo  rooms  to\trespondent  No.\t 5  Jitendra<br \/>\nShankerji Desai.  The appellant\t further  alleged  that\t the<br \/>\nrespondent No.\t5 Desai\t vacated the  suit  premises  on  14<br \/>\nApril, 1967.\n<\/p>\n<p>     At the  trial the\tissues were  whether  the  appellant<br \/>\nunlawfully sublet  two rooms  to respondent Desai. The Trial<br \/>\nCourt held  that the  appellant sublet\tthe suit premises to<br \/>\nrespondent No.\tS.  The\t Trial\tCourt  gave  the  plaintiff-<br \/>\nrespondent a decree for possession of the suit premises.\n<\/p>\n<p>     The appellant  preferred  an  appeal.  The\t appeal\t was<br \/>\ndismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p>     The appellant, thereafter, filed a revision petition in<br \/>\nthe High  Court. In  the High  Court  the  contentions\twere<br \/>\nthese. The  expression &#8220;the  tenant has\t sublet&#8221; in  section<br \/>\n13(1)(e)  of   the  above   mentioned  Act  means  that\t the<br \/>\nsubletting must continue at the date of the suit for passing<br \/>\nthe decree.  The notice\t was given  on 1  April, 1967.\t The<br \/>\nrespondent No.\t5 vacated  the premises in suit on 14 April,<br \/>\n1967. When  the suit  was filed\t the sub-tenant\t was not  in<br \/>\noccupation  of\t the  premises.\t  Therefore,  the  plaintiff<br \/>\nrespondent was not entitled to a decree.\n<\/p>\n<p>     The High  Court relied on a Bench Decision of that High<br \/>\nCourt\tMaganlal Narandas  Thakkar &amp;  Anr. v.  Arjan  Bhanii<br \/>\nKanbi(1)<br \/>\n     (1) 1969 G.L.R. Vol. 10 p. 837.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">537<\/span><\/p>\n<p>     where it  was held\t that  the  words  &#8220;has\t sublet&#8221;  in<br \/>\nsection 13(1)  (e) of  the Saurashtra  Rent Control Act mean<br \/>\nthat a\tsubletting has\ttake place  and as  a result of that<br \/>\nsubletting the\timpediment in  the way\tof the\tlandlord  to<br \/>\nrecover\t possession   has  been\t  removed.  The\t  provisions<br \/>\ncontained in section 13(1)(e) of the Saurashtra Rent Control<br \/>\nAct are\t r similar to the provisions contained in the Bombay<br \/>\nAct; 1947.  The High  Court also  held that  the wards\t&#8216;has<br \/>\nsublet&#8217; do  not include any element of the sub-tenancy being<br \/>\nin existence at the date when the suit is filed.\n<\/p>\n<p>     The appellant  relied on  a decision  on this  Court in<br \/>\nGoppal\tv.  Thakurji  Shriji  Shriji  Dwarkadheeshji  &amp;\t Anr<br \/>\nsupport of the proposition that the words &#8220;has sublet&#8221; means<br \/>\nthat the  subletting is\t to subsist at the date of the suit.<br \/>\nThis Court  in Goppulal&#8217;s  case (supra)\t considered  section<br \/>\n13(1) of  the\tRajasthan  Premises  (Control  of  Rent\t and<br \/>\nEviction) Act,\t1950. Section 13(1) (e) of the Rajasthan Act<br \/>\nprovides that  no decree evicting the tenant shall be passed<br \/>\nunless the  Court is  satisfied &#8220;(e)  that  the\t tenant\t has<br \/>\nassigned, sublet  or otherwise parted with the possession of<br \/>\nthe whole or part of the premises, without the permission of<br \/>\nthe landlord&#8221;.\n<\/p>\n<p>     The High  Court in\t Goppulal&#8217;s case  (supra) held\tthat<br \/>\ntwo. shops  were sublet\t after October\t15,  1947  when\t the<br \/>\nJaipur Rent  Control order, 1947 came into force. Subletting<br \/>\nwas a ground for ejectment under paragraph 8 (1) (b) (ii) of<br \/>\nthe Jaipur  Rent Control  order, 1947.\tThe High  Court held<br \/>\nthat the  tenant&#8217;s liability  for eviction  on\tthis  ground<br \/>\ncontinued after\t the promulgation  of the Rajasthan Premises<br \/>\n(Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950.\n<\/p>\n<p>     This Court\t said that  the High Court was in error that<br \/>\nthere was  one &#8220;integrated tenancy&#8221; for six shops. The facts<br \/>\nfound were  that four  shops were  let out  in 1944  and two<br \/>\nshops were  let out  after 1945.  This Court  found that the<br \/>\nHigh Court  was in  error in  holding that  two\t  shops were<br \/>\nsublet after 15 October, 1947.\n<\/p>\n<p>     This Court\t held that the plaintiffs in Goppulal&#8217;s case<br \/>\n(supra) did  not establish  that the subletting was after 15<br \/>\nOctober, 1947  and on the Date of the subletting in 1944, no<br \/>\nRent Control Legislation was in force. lt is in that context<br \/>\nthat it\t is said  that the  words &#8220;has sublet&#8221; contemplate a<br \/>\ncompleted event\t connected in  some  way  with\tthe  present<br \/>\ntime&#8221;. This  Court said\t that the  words &#8220;has  sublet&#8221;\ttake<br \/>\nwithin their sweep any subletting which was made in the past<br \/>\nand has\t continued upto\t the present time&#8221;. What is meant by<br \/>\nthese observations is that the vice of subletting which fell<br \/>\nwithin the  mischief of\t the Act  continues to be a mischief<br \/>\nwithin the  Act. In  Goppulal&#8217;s case  (supra) there  was  no<br \/>\nsubletting in  1947 to\tviolate the 1947 Jaipur Rent Control<br \/>\norder and  therefore there could not be any subletting which<br \/>\ncould continue upto the 1950 Rajasthan Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>     On the  date of  the subletting  in   1944, this  Court<br \/>\nfound in  Goppulal&#8217;s case  (supra) that\t there was  no\tRent<br \/>\nControl Legislation in<br \/>\n     (1) [1969] 3 S.C.R. 989.\n<\/p>\n<p>4-L925SupCI\/75<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">538<\/span><br \/>\nforce This Court did not consider the question as to whether<br \/>\nsubletting to be within the mischief of the relevant statute<br \/>\nwas to subsist at the date of the suit. This Court held that<br \/>\nsection 13(1)(e)  of the  Rajasthan Act\t would\tinclude\t any<br \/>\nsubletting which  though made  in the past would continue at<br \/>\nthe point of the time when the Act came into force.\n<\/p>\n<p>     The appellant  repeated the  same contentions which had<br \/>\nbeen advanced  before the  High Court. The provisions of the<br \/>\nBombay Rents,  Hotel and  Lodging House\t Rates Control\tAct,<br \/>\n1947 indicate that a tenant is disentitled to any protection<br \/>\nunder the Act if he is within the mischief of the provisions<br \/>\nof section  13(1)(e), namely,  t that  he  has\tsublet.\t The<br \/>\nlanguage is  that if  the tenant  has sublet, the protection<br \/>\nceases. To  accede to  the contention of the appellant would<br \/>\nmean that  a tenant  would not\tbe within  the\tmischief  of<br \/>\nunlawful subletting  if after  the landlord  gives a  notice<br \/>\nterminating the tenancy on the ground of unlawful subletting<br \/>\nthe sub-tenant vacates. The landlord will not be able to get<br \/>\nany  relief   against  the   tenant  in\t spite\tof  unlawful<br \/>\nsubletting. In\tthat way  the tenant can foil the attempt of<br \/>\nlandlord to  obtain possession of the premises on the ground<br \/>\nof subletting every time by getting the sub-tenant to vacate<br \/>\nthe premises. The tenant&#8217;s liability to eviction arises once<br \/>\nthe fact  of unlawful  subletting is  proved. At the date of<br \/>\nthe  notice,  if  it  is  proved  that\tthere  was  unlawful<br \/>\nsubletting, the\t tenant is  liable to  be evicted.  The High<br \/>\nCourt rightly rejected the revision petition.<\/p>\n<pre>\n     The appeal is dismissed with costs. ]\nP.H.P.\t\t\t\t\t   Appeal dismissed.\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">539<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Gajanan Dattatraya vs Sherbanu Hosang Patel &amp; Ors on 29 August, 1975 Equivalent citations: 1975 AIR 2156, 1976 SCR (1) 535 Author: A Ray Bench: Ray, A.N. (Cj) PETITIONER: GAJANAN DATTATRAYA Vs. RESPONDENT: SHERBANU HOSANG PATEL &amp; ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT29\/08\/1975 BENCH: RAY, A.N. (CJ) BENCH: RAY, A.N. (CJ) MATHEW, KUTTYIL [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-75648","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Gajanan Dattatraya vs Sherbanu Hosang Patel &amp; Ors on 29 August, 1975 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gajanan-dattatraya-vs-sherbanu-hosang-patel-ors-on-29-august-1975\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Gajanan Dattatraya vs Sherbanu Hosang Patel &amp; Ors on 29 August, 1975 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gajanan-dattatraya-vs-sherbanu-hosang-patel-ors-on-29-august-1975\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1975-08-28T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-05-04T02:47:40+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=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gajanan-dattatraya-vs-sherbanu-hosang-patel-ors-on-29-august-1975#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gajanan-dattatraya-vs-sherbanu-hosang-patel-ors-on-29-august-1975\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Gajanan Dattatraya vs Sherbanu Hosang Patel &amp; Ors on 29 August, 1975\",\"datePublished\":\"1975-08-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-05-04T02:47:40+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gajanan-dattatraya-vs-sherbanu-hosang-patel-ors-on-29-august-1975\"},\"wordCount\":1299,\"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\\\/gajanan-dattatraya-vs-sherbanu-hosang-patel-ors-on-29-august-1975#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gajanan-dattatraya-vs-sherbanu-hosang-patel-ors-on-29-august-1975\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gajanan-dattatraya-vs-sherbanu-hosang-patel-ors-on-29-august-1975\",\"name\":\"Gajanan Dattatraya vs Sherbanu Hosang Patel &amp; Ors on 29 August, 1975 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1975-08-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-05-04T02:47:40+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gajanan-dattatraya-vs-sherbanu-hosang-patel-ors-on-29-august-1975#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gajanan-dattatraya-vs-sherbanu-hosang-patel-ors-on-29-august-1975\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gajanan-dattatraya-vs-sherbanu-hosang-patel-ors-on-29-august-1975#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Gajanan Dattatraya vs Sherbanu Hosang Patel &amp; Ors on 29 August, 1975\"}]},{\"@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":"Gajanan Dattatraya vs Sherbanu Hosang Patel &amp; Ors on 29 August, 1975 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gajanan-dattatraya-vs-sherbanu-hosang-patel-ors-on-29-august-1975","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Gajanan Dattatraya vs Sherbanu Hosang Patel &amp; Ors on 29 August, 1975 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gajanan-dattatraya-vs-sherbanu-hosang-patel-ors-on-29-august-1975","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1975-08-28T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-05-04T02:47:40+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":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gajanan-dattatraya-vs-sherbanu-hosang-patel-ors-on-29-august-1975#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gajanan-dattatraya-vs-sherbanu-hosang-patel-ors-on-29-august-1975"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Gajanan Dattatraya vs Sherbanu Hosang Patel &amp; Ors on 29 August, 1975","datePublished":"1975-08-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-05-04T02:47:40+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gajanan-dattatraya-vs-sherbanu-hosang-patel-ors-on-29-august-1975"},"wordCount":1299,"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\/gajanan-dattatraya-vs-sherbanu-hosang-patel-ors-on-29-august-1975#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gajanan-dattatraya-vs-sherbanu-hosang-patel-ors-on-29-august-1975","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gajanan-dattatraya-vs-sherbanu-hosang-patel-ors-on-29-august-1975","name":"Gajanan Dattatraya vs Sherbanu Hosang Patel &amp; Ors on 29 August, 1975 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1975-08-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-05-04T02:47:40+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gajanan-dattatraya-vs-sherbanu-hosang-patel-ors-on-29-august-1975#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gajanan-dattatraya-vs-sherbanu-hosang-patel-ors-on-29-august-1975"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gajanan-dattatraya-vs-sherbanu-hosang-patel-ors-on-29-august-1975#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Gajanan Dattatraya vs Sherbanu Hosang Patel &amp; Ors on 29 August, 1975"}]},{"@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\/75648","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=75648"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/75648\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=75648"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=75648"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=75648"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}