{"id":77863,"date":"2004-03-23T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2004-03-22T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-s-pareed-kaka-ors-vs-shafee-ahmed-saheb-on-23-march-2004"},"modified":"2018-09-14T17:53:45","modified_gmt":"2018-09-14T12:23:45","slug":"p-s-pareed-kaka-ors-vs-shafee-ahmed-saheb-on-23-march-2004","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-s-pareed-kaka-ors-vs-shafee-ahmed-saheb-on-23-march-2004","title":{"rendered":"P.S. Pareed Kaka & Ors vs Shafee Ahmed Saheb on 23 March, 2004"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
P.S. Pareed Kaka & Ors vs Shafee Ahmed Saheb on 23 March, 2004<\/div>\n
Author: . A Lakshmanan<\/div>\n
Bench: R. C. Lahoti, Dr. Ar. Lakshmanan<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil)  3856-3858 of 1999\n\nPETITIONER:\nP.S. Pareed Kaka & Ors.\t               \t\t\t\n\nRESPONDENT:\nShafee Ahmed Saheb \t\t\t\t   \t\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 23\/03\/2004\n\nBENCH:\nR. C. Lahoti & Dr. AR. Lakshmanan\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
J U D G M E N T<\/p>\n
Dr. AR. Lakshmanan, J.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe matter arises under the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961.  The
\nunsuccessful tenants are the appellants in these appeals.  The respondent\/landlord
\nfiled rent control petitions before the Court of Small Causes against the appellants, inter
\nalia, under the provisions of Section 21 (h) and (j) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act.
\nThe Court of Small Causes dismissed the petitions.  The landlord filed revision
\npetitions, inter alia, challenging the order of the Court of Small Causes.  On 19.11.1998,
\nthe High Court allowed all the revision petitions by a common judgment and directed
\nthat the tenants shall vacate and deliver the premises under their respective occupation
\nto the landlord.  Aggrieved by the impugned judgment of the High Court, the tenants
\nhave approached this Court seeking special leave to appeal.
\nWe heard Mr. P.B. Menon, learned senior counsel for the appellants and Mr.
\nShakil Ahmed Syed, learned counsel for the respondent.  Mr. Menon submitted five
\nsubmissions in support of his contention.  They are:\n<\/p>\n
1.\tThe High Court has no jurisdiction to re-appreciate and evaluate the
\nevidence on record which has resulted in arriving at the conclusion which
\nis manifest in the impugned judgment and on this ground the impugned
\njudgment\/order ought to be set aside by this Court.\n<\/p>\n
2.\tThe High Court has failed to render a correct finding on the comparative
\nhardship.\n<\/p>\n
3.\tThe reasoning and finding of the High Court on each and every point
\nreferred to in the impugned judgment is bad in law, perverse and against
\nthe weight of the evidence on record of the case and as such has
\nresulted in substantial failure and miscarriage of justice to the petitioners.\n<\/p>\n
4.\tThe High Court was not right in law in holding that the landlord proved his
\nbonafide requirement of the premises in question.\n<\/p>\n
5.\tThe finding of the High Court that the building is not in a dilapidated
\ncondition is against the real facts.\n<\/p>\n
Learned counsel for the respondent took us through the pleadings and the order
\nand judgment passed by the Rent Controller and also by the High Court.  According to
\nhim, the High Court has jurisdiction under Section 50 to interfere with the findings of fact
\nand that the High Court is justified in interfering with the trial courts finding based on
\nabundant materials.  He would also submit that other findings rendered by the High
\nCourt in ordering eviction are unassailable and supported by cogent and convincing
\nreasons. He would pray for the dismissal of the special leave petition.  As already
\nnoticed, the eviction petition was filed under Section 21(h) and (j) which reads thus:-
\n“21. Protection of tenants against eviction.- (1) Notwithstanding anything
\nto the contrary contained in any other law or contract, no order or decree for
\nthe recovery of possession of any premises shall be made by any Court or
\nother authority in favour of the landlord against the tenant:\n<\/p>\n
Provided that the Court may on an application made to it, make an
\norder for the recovery of possession of a premises on one or more of the
\nfollowing grounds only, namely:-\n<\/p>\n
(a)\t..\n<\/p>\n
xxxx
\nxxxx
\nxxxx<\/p>\n
(h)\tthat the premises are reasonably and bona fide required by the landlord
\nfor occupation by himself or any person for whose benefit the premises
\nare held or where the landlord is a trustee of a public charitable trust,
\nthat the premises are required for occupation for the purposes of the
\ntrust; or <\/p>\n
(i)\txxxx<\/p>\n
(j)\tthat the premises are reasonably and bona fide required by the landlord
\nfor the immediate purpose of demolishing them and such demolition is
\nto be made for the purpose of erecting a new building in place of the
\npremises sought to be demolished; or<\/p>\n
(k)\txxxxxx”\n<\/p>\n
We reproduce hereunder Section 50 of the Act (Revision) in order to appreciate
\nthe arguments advanced by counsel appearing on either side in regard to the scope
\nand ambit of the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court.
\n“50. Revision.- (1) The High Court may, at any time call for and examine
\nany order passed or proceeding taken by the Court of Small Causes or the
\nCourt of Civil Judge under this Act or any order passed by the Controller
\nunder Sections 14,15,16or 17 for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the
\nlegality or correctness of such order or proceeding and may pass such order
\nin reference thereto as it thinks fit.\n<\/p>\n
(2) The District Judge may, at any time call for and examine any order
\npassed or proceeding taken by the Court of Munsiff referred to in sub-clause\n<\/p>\n
(iii) of clause (d) of Section 3 for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the
\nlegality or correctness of such order or proceeding and may pass such order
\nin reference thereto as he thinks fit.  The order of the District Judge shall be
\nfinal.\n<\/p>\n
(3) The costs of and incidental to all proceedings before the High Court or
\nthe District Judge shall be in the discretion of the High Court or the District
\nJudge, as the case may be.”\n<\/p>\n
As seen earlier, the Rent Controller passed a common order rejecting all the
\npetitions filed by the landlord.  The rejection was challenged by filing revisions under
\nSection 50 of the Rent Control Act.  According to the landlord, the accommodation
\navailable in the Nala road premises was insufficient, that the Nala road property is not
\nsituated in a good locality; that it was situated in an unhygienic area and facing a drain
\nemitting bad stench; that his family were feeling frequently sick due to the unhygienic
\natmosphere on the foul smell emanated therefrom.  Therefore, he wanted the schedule
\npremises for his own use and occupation for residential purposes.  The landlord also
\ncontended that the premises in question was more than 100 years old and is not fit for
\nhuman habitation and certain portions of the property had also collapsed and, therefore,
\nthe entire premises was required for the immediate purpose of demolition and for
\nreconstruction of a residential house to suit his needs for the purpose of his residence.\n<\/p>\n
The tenants resisted the petitions.  They contended that the premises at Nala
\nroad belonged to landlord and had adequate comfortable accommodation to meet the
\nlandlord’s requirement as his family consisted of only himself and his wife; that it was
\nsituated in a good locality; that the area was not unhygienic having regard to the fact
\nthat the drain facing the said property was not as open sewer drain, but a strong water
\ndrain with a covered sewer drain below it and that it did not emit any bad odour and
\nthat, therefore, the need put-forth by the landlord is not bona fide and reasonable.  They
\nalso contended that no hardship will be caused to the landlord if orders of eviction were
\nnot passed as he was comfortably residing at Nala road property.  All the tenants
\ncontended that they will be put to hardship if they are evicted from the property.\n<\/p>\n
The trial Court held that the landlord did not require the petition schedule
\npremises for demolition and reconstruction or for his own use.  Consequently, it did not
\nconsider the question of comparative hardship and partial eviction.  The Rent Controller
\nheld that the landlord did not prove that the property was in a dilapidated condition.  The
\nCourt also held that the premises No. 26 at Nala road where the landlord was residing
\nwas more spacious than the new building which he intended to construct at No. 71
\nLabbay Masjid street of which the petition schedule premises were all portions and as
\nthe landlord did not have any children and his family consisted of only himself and his
\nwife, premises at Nala road which consisted of 2 bed-rooms, one hall, one office room
\netc. was sufficient to meet his requirements.  In regard to the unhygienic atmosphere at
\nNala road the trial Court found that the premises in question was earlier in the
\noccupation of a tenant that the landlord had purchased the said property and filed an
\neviction petition against the tenant at Nala road on the ground that he require it for his
\nown use and thereafter occupied the premises, and the landlord having known fully well
\nthe existence of a Nala soak drain and having obtained possession of his property for
\nhis own use cannot now contend that the said premises is not situated in a good locality
\nor that it is unhygienic.  The trial Court, in our view, has completely misdirected itself in
\nconsidering what is bonafide and what is reasonable.  The findings on other issues also
\nare not satisfactory.\n<\/p>\n
The main ground on which the landlord wanted the petition schedule premises is
\nbecause he wanted to shift from Nala road premises which was situated in unhygienic
\nlocality and facing a drain.  He also contended that he wanted to demolish the more
\nthan 100 year old building of which the petition schedule premises were all portions and
\nthen put up a residential house for his own use and occupy the same for his residence.
\nThe trial Court has miserably failed to consider whether the need as putforth is bona
\nfide, reasonable or not.  The High Court on a reappreciation of the evidence came to
\nthe conclusion that the need is bona fide and the building require demolition and
\nreconstruction.  The evidence tendered consistently shows that all the witnesses have
\nclearly admitted that the Nala road property where the landlord is residing faces a drain
\nand that the area is unhygienic and he does not want to stay near a drain.  The tenants
\nhave admitted the same in their evidence.  It cannot be said that the decision of the
\nlandlord to leave the premises and to shift to a premises away from the drain is
\nunreasonable or unjust.  The evidence let in will clearly show that there is sufficient
\ncause for the landlord to shift his residence to a new premises and reside there.  In fact,
\nthe reasonableness can also be decided from the offer made by the landlord that if all
\nthe tenants vacate the petition schedule premises by consent the landlord is willing to
\neven demolish and construct shops and residential portions for the tenants in the Nala
\nroad property and give them on rent.  Of course, the said offer has not been accepted
\nby all the tenants.  It is contended on behalf of the learned counsel for the tenants that
\nthe landlord had obtained vacant possession of the Nala road property by evicting the
\nprevious tenants and move into the Nala road property.  It is only after living in the Nala
\nroad property the landlord came to know the disadvantages, namely, the bad smell from
\nthe open drain and the unhygienic surroundings the mere fact that he had filed an
\neviction petition against the earlier tenant of the Nala road property is not a ground to
\nhold that the landlord should continue to live in the said property undergoing hardship
\nand inconvenience.\n<\/p>\n
This brings us to the need for the petition schedule premises.  It is in evidence
\nthat the premises is very old and the building therein is dilapidated and portions of the
\nbuilding have also collapsed.  It is also in evidence that the rear outhouse building has
\nalready collapsed. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that the said need is not
\nbona fide or unreasonable.  It is not for the tenants to suggest that there is no need to
\ndemolish the existing building and construct the new building.  The landlord, in our view,
\nis entitled to make use of his property for any reasonable purpose.  If the landlord
\nchooses to use it for residential purpose, the tenants cannot say that he should not do
\nso to using for commercial purposes.  We, therefore, hold that the landlord has made
\nout the need clearly.\n<\/p>\n
Learned counsel for the tenants submitted that the family of the landlord consists
\nof only the landlord and his wife and he has no children and, therefore, he does not
\nrequire the petition schedule premises.  This contention cannot at all be countenanced.
\nIf the landlord wants to live by constructing a house in the petition schedule premises
\nthe mere fact that he does not have any children does not mean that he and his wife
\nshould not shift to the petition schedule premises.  It is also not in dispute that the
\nlandlord has got ample financial resources to demolish the building in question
\nreconstruct and occupy the same.  The tenants have also admitted that the building is
\nvery old and one of them admits that it is more than 100 years old.\n<\/p>\n
Law is well settled on this aspect.  Even if the building is in a good condition, if it
\nis not suitable for the requirement of the landlord, he can always demolish even a good
\nbuilding and put up a new building to suit his requirements.  It is not necessary for the
\nlandlord to prove that the condition of the building is such that it require immediate
\ndemolition particularly when the premises is required by the landlord.  Therefore, it has
\nto be held that the finding of the trial Court cannot be sustained and the High Court on
\nreappreciation of the evidence, rightly so, held that the landlord has established that his
\nneed for all the four petition schedule premises is bona fide and reasonable.\n<\/p>\n
In R.V.E. Venkatachala Gounder vs. Venkatesha Gupta and Others<\/a> [AIR
\n2002 SC 1733] one of us (R.C.Lahoti, J.) speaking for the Bench while dealing with the
\nsimilar provision under the Tamil Nadu Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act has
\nobserved as under:-\n<\/p>\n
“The building in question was located in busy business locality.  It was 30
\nyears old constructed of stones, bricks and mortar.  The roof was partially of
\ncement sheets and partially of tiles.  The building occupied only a portion of
\nthe landlords total land.  It was not dilapidated and damaged.  The landlord
\nto augment his income wanted to demolish and reconstruct new building on
\nhis entire land.  The proposed new building was to be a double storeyed
\nmodern building of cement concrete providing much more total
\naccommodation than what is available.  In such circumstances the offer of
\nthe tenant that they are prepared to pay the rent at the current rate, the one
\nwhich the landlord expects on reconstruction could not be a ground to
\nrefuse eviction decree to the landlord.”\n<\/p>\n
Again in para 11, this Court while approving the judgment of the Madras High
\nCourt (AR. Lakshmanan, J. as he then was) in A.N. Srinivasa Thevar vs.
\nSundarambal @ Prema W\/o Chandrakumar 1995 (2) Mad LW 14 has observed as
\nunder:\n<\/p>\n
“In A.N. Srinivasa Thevar v. Sundarambal alias Prema W\/o
\nChandrakumar 1995 (2) Mad LW 14; even before the decision by
\nConstitution Bench in Vijay Singh’s case was available, it was held in the
\nlight of the decision in P. Orr & Sons that the availability of the following
\nfactors was sufficient to make out a case of bona fide requirement under
\nS.14(1)(b):”(a) Capacity of the landlord to demolish and to reconstruct is
\nundisputed and also proved satisfactorily; (b) The size of the existing
\nbuilding occupies only one third of the site, leaving two third behind vacant
\nand unutilised; (c) Demand for additional space : The demised premises is
\nsituated in a busy locality.  Therefore, there is a great demand for additional
\nspace in the locality which could be met by demolishing the existing small
\nbuilding and putting up a larger building providing for future development
\nvertically also, by building pucca terraced building; (d) The economic
\nadvantage : A modern construction of a larger building shall certainly yield
\nbetter revenue and also appreciate in value, when compared to the
\nasbestos sheet roofed old building: In that case, it was observed that the
\nexisting building was an old, out-model asbestos sheet building proposed to
\nbe replaced with better and modern building which would provide for better
\nquality accommodation to the needs of the present days as the preservation
\nof such building in a busy locality of a town shall not only be an eyesore but
\nalso against the souring public demand for additional space.  Viewed from
\nthe angle of general interest of the public which, according to the decision in
\nP. Orr. & sons is one of the considerations, it was observed that a big site
\nshould yield to a larger modern building with an increased and enlarged
\naccommodation having better facilities to solve the ever increasing demand
\nfor more space.  Stalling growth and development for the sake of one tenant
\nwho is in occupation of an old model building constructed with mud and
\nmortar and asbestos sheets occupying only one third of the site was held to
\nbe not conducive to public interest.  We approve the statement of law and
\nthe approach adopted by Madras High Court in both the above said
\ndecisions.”\n<\/p>\n
The observations made by the single Judge of the Madras High Court (AR.
\nLakshmanan,J. as he then was) in A.N. Srinivasa Thevar (supra) can also be
\nbeneficially looked into in the present context :\n<\/p>\n
“In the present case, the landlady\/respondent has specifically stated in her
\npetition that the building consists of brick built structure covered by
\nAsbestos sheet.  Further, the premises does not yield good return, and in
\nthe present condition it has not been properly utilised.  Hence, she intends
\nto demolish the existing structure and construct a new building with better
\nutility and for good return.  As stated already, the building is situate at
\nKamaraj Salai, which is admittedly a busy locality.  It is borne out from the
\nevidence of both the landlady\/respondent and the tenant\/petitioner that
\nthere is a large vacant space behind the existing building.  A cumulative
\nreading of all the above facts would make it clear that in a busy locality in
\nPondicherry town, the demised premises which is more than 30 years old,
\nwith asbestos roof, occupying one third of the site leaving two third of the
\nsite vacant, behind the building.”\n<\/p>\n
In Harrington House School vs. S.M. Ispahani and<\/a> another [AIR 2002 SC
\n2268] one of us (R.C. Lahoti, J.) speaking for the Bench after analysing the entire facts
\nand circumstances and the law on the subject rendered a finding to the following effect:
\n“In the present case it has been found that the building is an old
\nconstruction requiring demolition and reconstruction.  Out of the total area of
\nthe property only a part is built up and substantial portion is lying open and
\nvacant.  There is pressure of population on the developing city and several
\nmulti-storey complexes have come up in the vicinity of the property.  There
\nis nothing to cast a shadow of doubt in the bona fides of the landlords
\npleading an immediate need for demolition followed by reconstruction.  No
\nfault can be found with the finding of fact arrived at by the High Court. The
\ndecision by the Appellate Court was rendered on 25th February, 1994 when
\nthree-Judge Bench decision of this Court in P.Orr & Sons (supra) was
\nholding the field and in view of the construction placed by this Court in P.Orr
\n& Sons the Appellate Court was persuaded to deny eviction in spite of the
\nfindings of facts being for the landlord.  The High Court has rightly set aside
\nthe judgment of the Appellate Authority and ordered eviction following the
\nlaw laid down by the Constitution Bench in Vijay Singh & Ors. case. It is true
\nthat the landlords have not pleaded and relied on the age and condition of
\nthe building as one of the components of their bona fides but that is
\nimmaterial.  The age and condition of the building has been determined and
\nis available for assessing the bona fides of the landlords’ need.”\n<\/p>\n
In Vijay Singh and Others vs. Vijayalakshmi Ammal<\/a> (1996) 6 SCC 475, this
\nCourt has observed in para 10 as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
“On reading Section 14(1)(b) along with Section 16 it can be said that for
\neviction of a tenant on the ground of demolition of the building for erecting a
\nnew building, the building need not be dilapidated or dangerous for human
\nhabitation.  If that was the requirement there is no occasion to put a
\ncondition to demolish within a specified time, and to erect a new building on
\nthe same site.  Sub-section (1) of Section 16 contemplates that permission
\nhas been granted by the Rent Controller under Section 14(1)(b) for
\ndemolition of the building, but if such demolition is not carried out in terms of
\nthe order and undertaking, then the Rent Controller can order the landlord to
\nput the tenant in possession of the building on the original terms and
\nconditions.  If the building is dangerous and dilapidated requiring immediate
\ndemolition for safety, then there is no question of the Rent Controller
\ndirecting the landlord to put the tenant in possession of such building on the
\noriginal terms and conditions, on account of the failure of the landlord to
\ncommence the demolition within the period prescribed.  Similarly, there was
\nno occasion to link the demolition of such building with erection of new
\nbuilding and then to give the landlord freedom from the restrictive provisions
\nof the Act for a period of five years from the date on which the construction
\nof such new building is completed and notified to the local authorities
\nconcerned.  In this background, it has to be held that neither of the extreme
\nposition taken by the respondent or the appellants can be accepted.
\nPermission under Section 14(1)(b) cannot be granted by the Rent Controller
\non mere asking of the landlord, that he proposes to immediately demolish
\nthe building in question to erect a new building.  At the same time it is
\ndifficult to accept the stand of the appellants that the building must be
\ndilapidated and dangerous, unfit for human habitation.  For granting
\npermission under Section 14(1)(b) the Rent Controller is expected to
\nconsider all relevant materials for recording a finding whether the
\nrequirement of the landlord for demolition of the building and erection of a
\nnew building on the same site is bona fide or not.  For recording a finding
\nthat requirement for demolition was bona fide, the Rent Controller has to
\ntake into account: (1) bona fide intention of the landlord far from the sole
\nobject only to get rid of the tenants; (2) the age and condition of the building;
\n(3) the financial position of the landlord to demolish and erect a new building
\naccording to the statutory requirements of the Act.  These are some of the
\nillustrative factors which have to be taken into consideration before an order
\nis passed under Section 14(1)(b).  No court can fix any limit in respect of the
\nage and condition of the building.  That factor has to be taken into
\nconsideration along with other factors and then a conclusion one way or the
\nother has to be arrived at by the Rent Controller.”\n<\/p>\n
The next question that arises for consideration is comparative hardship.
\nLearned counsel for the landlord has contended that the Nala road premises is
\nunsuitable because it is unhygienic and, therefore, he wants to shift to the petitions
\nschedule premises.  It is not the case of the tenants that the landlord has any other
\npremises of his own.  The landlord, in our view, will be put to hardship if he is not able
\nto shift to the petition schedule premises.  The tenants also will not be put to any
\nhardship at all as elaborately discussed by the High Court in para 20, 20.1, 20.2 and
\n20.3 with reference to each tenancy.  The evidence would clearly go to show that none
\nof the tenants will be put to hardship if they are evicted from the respective premises in
\ntheir occupation.  Learned counsel for the tenants argue that the High Court can
\ninterfere only if there is any mis-carriage of justice due to mistake of law and that the
\nfinding of the lower Court as to bona fide requirements etc. cannot be interefered with
\nby the High Court by reappreciating evidence which is impermissible in law.  In support
\nof his contention, he relied on the decision of this Court in Phiroze Bamanji Desai vs.
\nChandrakant M. Patel & Ors.<\/a> [1974] 3 SCR 267].  The above decision will be of any
\nassistance to the tenants.  The judgment is not only distinguishable on facts but also on
\nlaw.  On the other hand, this Court in Kempaiah vs. Lingaiah and Others<\/a> (2001) 8
\nSCC 718 held that the revisional powers of the High Court, under the Karnataka Rent
\nControl Act, are wider than the powers conferred upon it under Section 115 of the Code
\nof Civil Procedure and the High Court is not precluded to appreciate the evidence for
\narriving at the conclusion regarding the bona fide requirement etc.  We have already
\nextracted Section 50 of the Rent Control Act.  The said Section is widely couched.  The
\nHigh Court while exercising jurisdiction under Section 50 may at any time call for and
\nexamine any order passed or proceedings taken by the Court of Small Causes or the
\nCourt of Civil Judge or any order passed by the Controller under Section 14, 15, 16 or
\n17 for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the legality or correctness of such order or
\nproceeding and may pass such order in reference thereto as it things fit.  Under Section
\n115 C.P.C. the High Court has got power to revise the order passed by the Courts
\nsubordinate to it.  It cannot be disputed that the Rent Controller is a subordinate Court
\nand is liable to the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court. Hence, the High Court has
\npowers to entertain a revision and reappreciate the evidence and dispose of the same.
\nThe High Court has jurisdiction to go into the legality or correctness of the decision
\nwhich, in our view, includes the power to reappreciate evidence and that the High Court
\ncan interfere with the findings of fact also.  This apart, the jurisdiction of the High Court
\nunder Section 50 is to examine the legality and correctness of the order of the trial
\nCourt.  The examination as to the correctness involves appreciation of evidence and
\nthat the High Court can interfere if the finding of the Rent Controller is entirely
\nimprobable.\n<\/p>\n
For the aforesaid reasons, the tenants are not entitled to succeed in these
\nappeals and the appeals stand dismissed.  However, the tenants will have three
\nmonth’s time to vacate the premises in their respective occupation and subject to the
\nfiling of an usual undertaking within two weeks from this date failing which the landlord
\nis at liberty to levy execution and proceed further in accordance with law.  No costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India P.S. Pareed Kaka & Ors vs Shafee Ahmed Saheb on 23 March, 2004 Author: . A Lakshmanan Bench: R. C. Lahoti, Dr. Ar. Lakshmanan CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 3856-3858 of 1999 PETITIONER: P.S. Pareed Kaka & Ors. RESPONDENT: Shafee Ahmed Saheb DATE OF JUDGMENT: 23\/03\/2004 BENCH: R. C. Lahoti & Dr. […]<\/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-77863","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nP.S. Pareed Kaka & Ors vs Shafee Ahmed Saheb on 23 March, 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\/p-s-pareed-kaka-ors-vs-shafee-ahmed-saheb-on-23-march-2004\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"P.S. Pareed Kaka & Ors vs Shafee Ahmed Saheb on 23 March, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-s-pareed-kaka-ors-vs-shafee-ahmed-saheb-on-23-march-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=\"2004-03-22T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-09-14T12:23:45+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=\"22 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-s-pareed-kaka-ors-vs-shafee-ahmed-saheb-on-23-march-2004#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-s-pareed-kaka-ors-vs-shafee-ahmed-saheb-on-23-march-2004\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"P.S. Pareed Kaka & Ors vs Shafee Ahmed Saheb on 23 March, 2004\",\"datePublished\":\"2004-03-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-09-14T12:23:45+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-s-pareed-kaka-ors-vs-shafee-ahmed-saheb-on-23-march-2004\"},\"wordCount\":4450,\"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\\\/p-s-pareed-kaka-ors-vs-shafee-ahmed-saheb-on-23-march-2004#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-s-pareed-kaka-ors-vs-shafee-ahmed-saheb-on-23-march-2004\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-s-pareed-kaka-ors-vs-shafee-ahmed-saheb-on-23-march-2004\",\"name\":\"P.S. Pareed Kaka & Ors vs Shafee Ahmed Saheb on 23 March, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2004-03-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-09-14T12:23:45+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-s-pareed-kaka-ors-vs-shafee-ahmed-saheb-on-23-march-2004#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-s-pareed-kaka-ors-vs-shafee-ahmed-saheb-on-23-march-2004\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-s-pareed-kaka-ors-vs-shafee-ahmed-saheb-on-23-march-2004#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"P.S. Pareed Kaka & Ors vs Shafee Ahmed Saheb on 23 March, 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":"P.S. Pareed Kaka & Ors vs Shafee Ahmed Saheb on 23 March, 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\/p-s-pareed-kaka-ors-vs-shafee-ahmed-saheb-on-23-march-2004","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"P.S. Pareed Kaka & Ors vs Shafee Ahmed Saheb on 23 March, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-s-pareed-kaka-ors-vs-shafee-ahmed-saheb-on-23-march-2004","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2004-03-22T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-09-14T12:23:45+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":"22 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-s-pareed-kaka-ors-vs-shafee-ahmed-saheb-on-23-march-2004#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-s-pareed-kaka-ors-vs-shafee-ahmed-saheb-on-23-march-2004"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"P.S. Pareed Kaka & Ors vs Shafee Ahmed Saheb on 23 March, 2004","datePublished":"2004-03-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-09-14T12:23:45+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-s-pareed-kaka-ors-vs-shafee-ahmed-saheb-on-23-march-2004"},"wordCount":4450,"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\/p-s-pareed-kaka-ors-vs-shafee-ahmed-saheb-on-23-march-2004#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-s-pareed-kaka-ors-vs-shafee-ahmed-saheb-on-23-march-2004","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-s-pareed-kaka-ors-vs-shafee-ahmed-saheb-on-23-march-2004","name":"P.S. Pareed Kaka & Ors vs Shafee Ahmed Saheb on 23 March, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2004-03-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-09-14T12:23:45+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-s-pareed-kaka-ors-vs-shafee-ahmed-saheb-on-23-march-2004#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-s-pareed-kaka-ors-vs-shafee-ahmed-saheb-on-23-march-2004"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-s-pareed-kaka-ors-vs-shafee-ahmed-saheb-on-23-march-2004#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"P.S. Pareed Kaka & Ors vs Shafee Ahmed Saheb on 23 March, 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\/77863","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=77863"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/77863\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=77863"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=77863"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=77863"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}