{"id":81178,"date":"1988-03-23T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1988-03-22T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohan-lal-vs-jai-bhagwan-on-23-march-1988"},"modified":"2016-05-17T22:57:52","modified_gmt":"2016-05-17T17:27:52","slug":"mohan-lal-vs-jai-bhagwan-on-23-march-1988","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohan-lal-vs-jai-bhagwan-on-23-march-1988","title":{"rendered":"Mohan Lal vs Jai Bhagwan on 23 March, 1988"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Mohan Lal vs Jai Bhagwan on 23 March, 1988<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1988 AIR 1034, \t\t 1988 SCR (3) 345<\/div>\n
Author: S Mukharji<\/div>\n
Bench: Mukharji, Sabyasachi (J)<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nMOHAN LAL\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nJAI BHAGWAN\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT23\/03\/1988\n\nBENCH:\nMUKHARJI, SABYASACHI (J)\nBENCH:\nMUKHARJI, SABYASACHI (J)\nRANGNATHAN, S.\n\nCITATION:\n 1988 AIR 1034\t\t  1988 SCR  (3) 345\n 1988 SCC  (2) 474\t  JT 1988 (2)\t 61\n 1988 SCALE  (1)675\n CITATOR INFO :\n RF\t    1989 SC1841\t (5)\n\n\nACT:\n     Haryana Urban  (Control of\t Rent &\t Eviction) Act, 1973\nSection 13(2)(ii)(b)-Tenant-Eviction  of-Use of building for\npurpose other than for which leased.\n     Landlord-Renting out  shop-Tenant-To  run\tbusiness  of\nEnglish Liquor\tVend-Do sale  of liquor-Liquor\tlicence\t not\nrenewed-Tenant doing business of general merchandise-Whether\nchange in user.\n     Statutory\t  Interpretation:     Statutes-Words\t and\nexpressions-Meaning must be found in the felt necessities of\nthe time.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n%\n     The appellant-tenant  took on  rent the  suit  premises\nfrom the respondent-landlord on a monthly rent of Rs.120 and\nexecuted a  rent note  in his  favour on  19th April,  1975.\nClause 4  of the  rent note  provided that the tenant was to\nrun the\t 'business of  English Liquor  Vend, and  do sale of\nliquor in the shop.'\n     The respondent  filed a  petition\tfor  eviction  under\nsection 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction)\nAct, 1973  against the\tappellant on the ground of ground of\nrent from 1st April, 1979 to 31st August, 1979 and change of\nuser  from   liquor  vend   business  to   that\t of  general\nmerchandise.\n     The appellant  tendered the  entire arrears  of rent at\nthe first  date\t of  hearing,  and  contested  the  eviction\npetition by filing a written statement contending that after\nMarch, 1979 the licence of liquor-vend in his favour was not\nrenewed, and he had to discontinue that business at the suit\npremises,  and\t had  to   start  the  business\t of  general\nmerchandise. It\t was, further, contended that the purpose of\nuser still  remained commercial and that there was no clause\nin the\trent note prohibiting the appellant to change to any\nother business.\n     The Rent Controller held that the appellant had changed\nthe user  of the  shop in dispute and that he was liable for\neviction under the Act.\n346\n     The Appellate  Authority dismissed the appeal. The High\nCourt also dismissed the Civil Revision and upheld the order\nof eviction.\n     Allowing the Appeal, this Court,\n^\n     HELD: 1.  The business purposes must be adjudged in the\nlight of  the purposes\tof the Rent Act in question which is\nto control the eviction of tenants therefrom. [349C]\n     2. In  the expanding  concept of  business nowadays and\nthe growing  concept of\t departmental stores,  it cannot  be\nsaid that  there was any change of user in the instant case,\nwhen the  tenant converted  the use  of\t the  building\tfrom\nliquor vend  business to  that of  general merchandise.\t The\nbuilding was  rented  for  the\tpurpose\t of  carrying  on  a\nbusiness. It  was used\tfor another business which would not\nin any way impair the utility or damage to the building, and\nthe business  could be\tconveniently carried  on in the said\npremises. No  nuisance was  also created.  The\tcase  would,\ntherefore, not\tattract the  mischief  of  s.  13(2)(ii)(b).\n[349D, 350E]\n     3. So  far as the High Court of Punjab and Haryana held\nin the\tFull Bench  decision in\t Sikander Lal  v. Amrit Lal,\n(1984 Punjab  Law Reporter 1) that allied business would not\namount to  change of  user but\tfor a  business which is not\nallied for  the business  for which  it was  let  out  would\namount to  change of user come within the mischief of clause\n(b) of\tsection 13(2)(ii)  of the Act, the same must be read\nwith reservation. [348H, 349A]\n     4. When  Parliament legislates  to remedy a defect or a\nlacuna in  the existing\t law, and  the judiciary  interprets\nthem, it  has to  be borne  in mind  that the  meaning of an\nexpression must\t be found  in the  felt necessities of time.\n[349G-H, 350C-D]\n     Duport Steels  Ltd. & others v. Sirs and others, [1980]\n1 All.E.R. 529 at 541. referred to.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
     CIVIL APPELLATE  JURISDICTION: Civil  Appeal No.  50 of
\n1988.\n<\/p>\n
      From  the Judgment  and order  dated  14.8.87  of\t the
\nPunjab &  Haryana High\tCourt in  Civil Revision No. 2836 of
\n1982.\n<\/p>\n
      Dr. Meera Aggarwal for the Petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
347<\/span><\/p>\n
     A.B. Rohtagi,  Mukul Rohtagi,  Atul Tewari and Ms. Bina
\nGupta for the Respondent.\n<\/p>\n
     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\n     SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, J. This appeal by special leave is
\ndirected against  the judgment\tof the\tHigh Court of Punjab
\nand Haryana  dated 14th\t August, 1987. The appellant took on
\nrent the  premises in  dispute\tfrom  the  respondent  at  a
\nmonthly rent  of Rs.  120 and  executed a  rent note  in his
\nfavour on  19th April,\t1975. Clause 4 of the said rent note
\nprovided, inter alia, as follows:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “That the  tenant will run the business of English
\n\t  Liquor Vend in the shop-will do sale of Liquor.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     The landlord,  respondent herein filed a petition under
\nsection 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction)
\nAct,  1973   (hereinafter  called  ‘the\t Act’)\tagainst\t the
\nappellant on  the ground of arrears of rent from 1.4.1979 to
\n31.8.1979 and  change of  user from  Liquor Vend business to
\nthat of\t general merchandise  at the  shop in dispute by the
\nappellant.\n<\/p>\n
     The appellant  tendered the  entire arrears  of rent at
\nthe first  date of  hearing and\t thereafter he\tcontested by
\nfiling written statement. The appellant submitted that after
\nMarch, 1979,  the licence  of liquor-vend  in his favour was
\nnot renewed  and he  had to  discontinue  that\tbusiness  of
\nliquor-vend at\tthe shop  in dispute  and had  to start\t the
\nbusiness of  general merchandise. According to the appellant
\nthe purpose of the user still remains commercial and that in
\nthe rent  note there was no clause prohibiting the appellant
\nto change any other business in the shop in dispute.\n<\/p>\n
     The Rent Controller held that the appellant had changed
\nthe user  of the  shop in  dispute and\the  was\t liable\t for
\neviction under the Act. There was an appeal to the Appellate
\nAuthority and  the Appellate  Authority dismissed  the\tsaid
\nappeal. The  appellant went  in civil  revision to  the High
\nCourt of  Punjab and  Haryana. The  High Court dismissed the
\ncivil revision and upheld the eviction. Hence this appeal.\n<\/p>\n
     The question is, whether a ground for eviction was made
\nout under  clause (b)  of section  13(2)(ii) of the Act. The
\nsaid Act  was passed  to control  the increase\tof  rent  of
\ncertain buildings and rented land situated within the limits
\nof urban areas, and the eviction of the
\n348<\/span>
\ntenants therefrom.  Section 13(2)(ii)(b) of the Act reads as
\nfollows:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “13(2) A  landlord who  seeks to  evict his tenant
\n\t  shall apply  to the  Controller, for\tdirection in
\n\t  that behalf.\tIf the\tController, after giving the
\n\t  tenant a  reasonable opportunity  of showing cause
\n\t  against the application is satisfied:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (i) XX\t XX\t   XX\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (ii) that  the tenant\t has after  commencement  of
\n\t  1949 Act,  without  the  written  consent  of\t the
\n\t  landlord\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (a) XX\t XX\t   XX\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (b) used the building or rented land for a purpose
\n\t  other than that for which it was leased.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     The High  Court of\t Punjab and  Haryana has relied on a
\nFull Bench  decision of\t the said High Court in Sikander Lal
\nv. Amrit  Lal, [1984] Punjab Law Reporter 1. That was a case
\nunder the  East Punjab\tUrban Rent  Restriction Act of 1949.
\nThe Full  Bench of  the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the
\nfacts and  circumstances of  that case\theld that  it was  a
\ncommon ground  that the\t premises was  originally leased for
\nthe business  of handlooms. Thereafter it was used for small
\ncarding machine\t not occupying a space of more than 4 feet x
\n4 feet\twhich converted\t cloth into thread. It was held that
\nthere was  no change  of  user.\t The  Full  Bench,  however,
\nobserved that  it emerged  from the long line of authorities
\nthat where  the subsequent  use of  the premises  is  merely
\nancillary to  the specific  original purpose  then it  would
\nimply no  change of  user within the meaning of the statute.
\nIf by custom or convention or on the finding of the Court it
\ncould be  held that  the  added\t use  of  the  premises\t was
\nancillary to  the main\toriginal purpose  then in the eye of
\nlaw it\twould be deemed to have been within the terms of the
\noriginal lease.\t It was\t further held that both on principle
\nand on\tbinding precedent  it  emerged\tthat  the  specified
\noriginal purpose  could not be, according to the Full Bench,
\nextended by  adding to it any and every purpose thereto, and
\nthe same  must be  confined within  the limitation  of being
\neither a  part or  parcel of,  or ancillary to, the original
\npurpose.  There\t  the  Court   was  concerned  with  section
\n13(2)(ii)(b) of\t the Act  which is an identical provision as
\nthe present  one. So far as the High Court held in that case
\nthat allied  business would not amount to change of user but
\nfor a  business which  is not  allied for  the business\t for
\nwhich it was let out would amount to change
\n349<\/span>
\nof user\t come within  the mischief  of clause (b) of section
\n13(2)(ii)  of\tthe  Act,   the\t same\tmust  be  read\twith
\nreservation.\n<\/p>\n
     Our attention  was drawn to a decision of this Court in
\nMaharaj Kishan\tKesar v.  Milkha Singh\tand  others,  (Civil
\nAppeal No.  1086 of  1964 decided on 10th of November, 1965.
\nThat was  a  decision  under  the  East\t Punjab\t Urban\tRent
\nRestriction Act,  1949. There  on the  facts the Court found
\nthat selling  petrol was  an allied business of the workshop
\nand as\tsuch it\t is a  part of\tthe business. The Court held
\nthat there is no evidence to show that in the trade a petrol
\npump is\t not regarded  as a part of motor workshop business.
\nThe sale  of petrol  is an  allied business  and  would\t not
\namount to  conversion to  a different  business or change of
\nuser. There is nothing in the said decision which would give
\nany assistance\tto the respondent in this case. The business
\npurposes must  be adjudged  in the  light of the purposes of
\nthe Rent Act in question which is to control the eviction of
\ntenants therefrom.  In the  expanding  concept\tof  business
\nnow-a-days and\tthe growing  concept of departmental stores,
\nwe are\tof the opinion that it cannot be said that there was
\nany change  of user  in the  facts of  this case which would
\nattract\t the   mischief\t of   the  provisions\tof   section
\n13(2)(ii)(b) of the Act. The building was rented for purpose
\nof carrying on a business, using it for another business, it
\nwill not  in any  way  impair  the  utility  or\t damage\t the
\nbuilding and this business can be conveniently carried on in
\nthe said premises. There was no nuisance created.\n<\/p>\n
     Our attention  was drawn  to the  observations of\tLord
\nDiplock in Duport Steels Ltd. and others v. Sirs and others,
\n[1980] 1 All.E.R. 529 at 541. That was a decision in respect
\nof the Trade Disputes Act 1906. Lord Diplock said:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “My Lords,  at a  time when  more and\t more  cases
\n\t  involving the\t application  of  legislation  which
\n\t  gives effect\tto policies  that are the subject of
\n\t  bitter public\t and parliamentary  controversy,  it
\n\t  cannot be too strongly emphasised that the British
\n\t  Constitution, though\tlargely unwritten, is firmly
\n\t  based on  the\t separation  of\t powers:  Parliament
\n\t  makes the laws, the judiciary interpret them. When
\n\t  Parliament legislates\t to remedy what the majority
\n\t  of its members at the time perceive to be a defect
\n\t  or a lacuna in the existing law (whether it be the
\n\t  written law  enacted by  existing statutes  or the
\n\t  unwritten common  law as  it has been expounded by
\n\t  the judges  in decided  cases), the  role  of\t the
\n\t  judiciary is\tconfined to  ascertaining  from\t the
\n\t  words that Parliament
\n350<\/span>
\n\t  has approved as expressing its intention what that
\n\t  intention was,  and to  giving effect to it. Where
\n\t  the meaning  of the  statutory words\tis plain and
\n\t  unambiguous it  is not  for the  judges to  invent
\n\t  fancied ambiguities  as an  excuse for  failing to
\n\t  give effect  to its  plain  meaning  because\tthey
\n\t  themselves consider that the consequences of doing
\n\t  so  would   be  inexpedient,\tor  even  unjust  or
\n\t  immoral. In  controversial  matters  such  as\t are
\n\t  involved in industrial relations there is room for
\n\t  differences of  opinion as  to what  is expedient,
\n\t  what is  just and  what  is  morally\tjustifiable.
\n\t  Under our  constitution it is Parliament’s opinion
\n\t  on these matters that is paramount.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     While respectfully\t agreeing with the said observations
\nof Lord\t Diplock, that\tthe Parliament\tlegislates to remedy
\nand the judiciary interpret them, it has to be borne in mind
\nthat the meaning of the expression must be found in the felt
\nnecessities of\ttime. In  the background  of the  purpose of
\nrent legislation  and in  as much as in the instant case the
\nchange of the user would not cause any mischief or detriment
\nor impairment of the shop in question and in one sense could
\nbe called  an allied  business in  the expanding  concept of
\ndepartmental stores,  in our opinion, in this case there was
\nno change  of user  which attract  the mischief\t of  section
\n13(2)(ii)(b) of\t the Act.  The High Court, therefore, was in
\nerror.\n<\/p>\n
     In that  view of  the matter this appeal is allowed and
\nthe order of eviction is set aside. The parties will pay and
\nbear their own costs.\n<\/p>\n
N.V.K.\t\t\t\t\t     Appeal allowed.\n351<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Mohan Lal vs Jai Bhagwan on 23 March, 1988 Equivalent citations: 1988 AIR 1034, 1988 SCR (3) 345 Author: S Mukharji Bench: Mukharji, Sabyasachi (J) PETITIONER: MOHAN LAL Vs. RESPONDENT: JAI BHAGWAN DATE OF JUDGMENT23\/03\/1988 BENCH: MUKHARJI, SABYASACHI (J) BENCH: MUKHARJI, SABYASACHI (J) RANGNATHAN, S. CITATION: 1988 AIR 1034 1988 SCR […]<\/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-81178","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nMohan Lal vs Jai Bhagwan on 23 March, 1988 - 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\/mohan-lal-vs-jai-bhagwan-on-23-march-1988\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Mohan Lal vs Jai Bhagwan on 23 March, 1988 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohan-lal-vs-jai-bhagwan-on-23-march-1988\" \/>\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=\"1988-03-22T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-05-17T17:27:52+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=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohan-lal-vs-jai-bhagwan-on-23-march-1988#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohan-lal-vs-jai-bhagwan-on-23-march-1988\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Mohan Lal vs Jai Bhagwan on 23 March, 1988\",\"datePublished\":\"1988-03-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-05-17T17:27:52+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohan-lal-vs-jai-bhagwan-on-23-march-1988\"},\"wordCount\":1558,\"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\\\/mohan-lal-vs-jai-bhagwan-on-23-march-1988#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohan-lal-vs-jai-bhagwan-on-23-march-1988\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohan-lal-vs-jai-bhagwan-on-23-march-1988\",\"name\":\"Mohan Lal vs Jai Bhagwan on 23 March, 1988 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1988-03-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-05-17T17:27:52+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohan-lal-vs-jai-bhagwan-on-23-march-1988#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohan-lal-vs-jai-bhagwan-on-23-march-1988\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohan-lal-vs-jai-bhagwan-on-23-march-1988#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Mohan Lal vs Jai Bhagwan on 23 March, 1988\"}]},{\"@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":"Mohan Lal vs Jai Bhagwan on 23 March, 1988 - 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\/mohan-lal-vs-jai-bhagwan-on-23-march-1988","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Mohan Lal vs Jai Bhagwan on 23 March, 1988 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohan-lal-vs-jai-bhagwan-on-23-march-1988","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1988-03-22T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-05-17T17:27:52+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":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohan-lal-vs-jai-bhagwan-on-23-march-1988#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohan-lal-vs-jai-bhagwan-on-23-march-1988"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Mohan Lal vs Jai Bhagwan on 23 March, 1988","datePublished":"1988-03-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-05-17T17:27:52+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohan-lal-vs-jai-bhagwan-on-23-march-1988"},"wordCount":1558,"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\/mohan-lal-vs-jai-bhagwan-on-23-march-1988#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohan-lal-vs-jai-bhagwan-on-23-march-1988","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohan-lal-vs-jai-bhagwan-on-23-march-1988","name":"Mohan Lal vs Jai Bhagwan on 23 March, 1988 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1988-03-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-05-17T17:27:52+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohan-lal-vs-jai-bhagwan-on-23-march-1988#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohan-lal-vs-jai-bhagwan-on-23-march-1988"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohan-lal-vs-jai-bhagwan-on-23-march-1988#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Mohan Lal vs Jai Bhagwan on 23 March, 1988"}]},{"@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\/81178","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=81178"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/81178\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=81178"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=81178"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=81178"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}