{"id":86584,"date":"2000-07-08T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2000-07-07T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dhannalal-vs-kalawatibai-ors-on-8-july-2000-2"},"modified":"2019-04-11T18:32:21","modified_gmt":"2019-04-11T13:02:21","slug":"dhannalal-vs-kalawatibai-ors-on-8-july-2000-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dhannalal-vs-kalawatibai-ors-on-8-july-2000-2","title":{"rendered":"Dhannalal vs Kalawatibai & Ors on 8 July, 2000"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Dhannalal vs Kalawatibai & Ors on 8 July, 2000<\/div>\n
Author: R Lahoti<\/div>\n
Bench: R.C. Lahoti, B.N. Agrawal.<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil) 3652  of  2002\nAppeal (civil)\t3653\t of  2002\n\n\n\nPETITIONER:\nDHANNALAL\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nKALAWATIBAI & ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t08\/07\/2000\n\nBENCH:\nR.C. LAHOTI,  B.N. AGRAWAL.\n\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
R.C. Lahoti, J.\n<\/p>\n
\tLeave granted.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe suit premises in these two appeals are two shops situated in
\nM.T. Cloth Market, Indore on the ground-floor of a building.  The
\nproperty was owned by late Krishnadas.\tHe inducted the two
\nappellants in the two shops as tenants for non-residential purpose.
\nKrishnadas died on 8.7.1995.  His ownership and right of reversion as
\nlandlord have devolved on his widow – Smt. Kalawatibai and two sons\n<\/p>\n
– Govinda and Hemant. These three are the respondents in these
\nappeals.  They initiated the proceedings for eviction of the two
\nappellants in December 1995.  The case of the respondents is that the
\nshop in the occupation of appellant Dhannalal is required bona fide
\nfor starting the business of Govinda, the respondent no.2, while the
\nshop in the occupation of the other appellant, M\/s Tulsidas
\nSureshchandra is required by the respondent Hemant for shifting and
\ncontinuing his readymade garments business which he is presently
\nrunning in a rented accommodation situated in Gorakund locality, at a
\nlittle distance from the building in question. It is alleged that the
\nrespondents do not own or possess any other accommodation of their
\nown suitable to satisfy their alleged requirement.  These proceedings
\nfor eviction were initiated under Chapter III-A of M.P.
\nAccommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter the Act, for short) by
\nfiling applications before the Rent Controlling Authority, Indore
\n(RCA, for short).  The two appellants contested the claim preferred by
\nthe  respondents.    However,  the  R.C.A. found the claims for
\neviction proved and directed the two appellants to be evicted.\tBoth
\nthe appellants preferred revision petitions under Section 23-E of the
\nAct before the High Court.  The High Court, having dealt with each of
\nthe contentions raised on behalf of the revision petitioners, has
\ndismissed the revision petitions upholding the orders of the R.C.A.
\nFeeling aggrieved thereby these appeals have been filed by special
\nleave.\n<\/p>\n
Two questions arise for decision in these appeals: firstly,
\nwhether looking at the nature of requirement pleaded by the landlord-
\nrespondents in their applications the forum of Rent Controlling
\nAuthority was available to the respondents under Chapter III-A of the
\nAct or whether they were required to have recourse to the jurisdiction
\nof Civil Court by filing suits for eviction under Section 12 of the Act;
\nand secondly, whether the landlords have succeeded in making out
\ncase of bona fide requirement of the suit premises within the meaning
\nof clause (b) of Section 23-A of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
\tM.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 is a legislation
\nproviding for regulation and control of letting and rent of
\naccommodations and generally to regulate the control of eviction of
\ntenants from accommodations and for other matters connected
\ntherewith or incidental thereto.  It also provides for expeditious trial of
\neviction cases on ground of bona fide requirement of certain
\ncategories of landlords.  Section 12 of the Act, which opens with a
\nnon-obstante clause, provides for no suit against a tenant for his
\neviction from any accommodation being filed in any Civil Court
\nexcept on one or more of the grounds enumerated therein.  Thus the
\nrights, obligations and protection of the tenants in the matter of
\neviction from accommodations are governed principally by Section 12
\nof the Act and suit against tenant seeking eviction can be filed only in
\nCivil Court.  The procedure applicable and the remedy of appeal and
\nrevision are those as enumerated in the Code of Civil Procedure.  The
\nM.P. Amendment Act No. 27 of 1983 w.e.f. 16.8.1983 inserted in the
\nAct Chapter III-A entitled “Eviction of tenants on grounds of
\n‘bonafide’ requirement” making provision for a special and summary
\nprocedure for dealing with claims for eviction of tenants founded on
\nthe ground of bona fide requirement for all the landlords generally.
\nCorresponding amendment was made in Section 12 of the Act so as to
\ndo away with jurisdiction of Civil Court so far as claim for eviction on
\nthe ground of bona fide requirement, residential or non-residential, is
\nconcerned.  Within a short range of time the Legislature gave a second
\nthought and in its wisdom considered it appropriate to not to extend
\nthe benefit of the provisions contained in Chapter III-A to all
\nlandlords generally but to keep it confined to such specified categories
\nof landlords who on account of certain handicap, adversity or a
\npeculiar position in which they are placed need to be dealt with on a
\ndifferent pedestal and given advantage of a summary, quick and
\nexpeditious remedy of seeking eviction on the ground of personal
\nrequirement.  Chapter III-A was hence amended by M.P. Act No. 7 of
\n1985 w.e.f. 16.1.1985.\tWe are concerned  with the provisions of
\nChapter III-A as amended.  Chapter III-A, as it stands now (since
\n16.1.1985), makes provision for proceedings for eviction of tenants,
\non the ground of bonafide requirement for residential or non-
\nresidential purpose, being initiated in the forum of Rent Controlling
\nAuthority only by specified categories of landlords (and not by any
\nlandlord generally).\n<\/p>\n
\tSection 12 of the Act, placed in Chapter III dealing with control
\nof eviction of tenants, provides (by relevant part thereof) as under :
\nSec.12. Restriction on eviction of tenants.  (1)
\nNotwithstanding anything to the contrary
\ncontained in any other law or contract, no suit shall
\nbe filed in any Civil Court against a tenant for his
\neviction from any accommodation except on one
\nor more of the following grounds only namely:-\n<\/p>\n
\txxx\txxx\t\txxx\t\t\txxx<\/p>\n
\txxx\txxx\t\txxx\t\t\txxx<\/p>\n
(e)\tthat the accommodation let for residential
\npurposes is required bona-fide by the
\nlandlord for occupation as a residence for
\nhimself or for any member of his family, if
\nhe is the owner thereof or for any person for
\nwhose benefit the accommodation is held
\nand that the landlord or such person has no
\nother reasonably suitably residential
\naccommodation of his own his occupation in
\nthe city or town concerned;\n<\/p>\n
(f)\tthat the accommodation let for non-\n<\/p>\n
residential purposes is required bona-fide by
\nthe landlord for the purpose of continuing or
\nstarting his business or that any of his major
\nsons or unmarried daughters if he is the
\nowner thereof or of any person for whose
\nbenefit the accommodation is held and that
\nthe landlord or such person has no other
\nreasonably suitably non-residential
\naccommodation of his own in his occupation
\nin the city or town concerned.\n<\/p>\n
The abovesaid provision needs to be read in juxtaposition with
\nSection 23-A of the Act placed in Chapter III-A of the Act which
\nreads as under:\n<\/p>\n
“23-A.\tSpecial provision for eviction of
\ntenant on ground of bona fide
\nrequirement.___ Notwithstanding anything
\ncontained in any other law for the time being in
\nforce or contract to the contrary, a landlord
\nmay submit an application, signed and verified
\nin a manner provided in rules 14 and 15 of
\nOrder VI of the First Schedule to the Code of
\nCivil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908) as if it were
\na plaint to the Rent Controlling Authority on
\none or more of the following grounds for an
\norder directing the tenant to put the landlord in
\npossession of the accommodation, namely:-\n<\/p>\n
(a)\tthat the accommodation let for
\nresidential purposes is required “bona
\nfide” by the landlord for occupation
\nas residence for himself or for any
\nmember of his family, or for any
\nperson for whose benefit, the
\naccommodation is held and that the
\nlandlord or such person has no other
\nreasonably suitable residential
\naccommodation of his own in his
\noccupation  in the city or town
\nconcerned.”\n<\/p>\n
\tExplanation.For the purposes of this clause,
\n“accommodation let for residential purposes”
\nincludes<\/p>\n
(i)\tany accommodation which having been
\nlet for use as a residence is without the
\nexpress consent of the landlord, used
\nwholly or partly for any non-residential
\npurpose;\n<\/p>\n
(ii)\tany accommodation which has not been
\nlet under an express provision of contract
\nfor non-residential purpose;\n<\/p>\n
       (b)\tthat the accommodation let for non-\n<\/p>\n
residential purposes is required “bona
\nfide” by the landlord for the purpose of
\ncontinuing or starting his business or that
\nof any of his major sons or unmarried
\ndaughters, if he is the owner thereof or
\nfor any person for whose benefit the
\naccommodation is held and that the
\nlandlord or such person as no other
\nreasonably suitable non-residential
\naccommodation of his own in his
\noccupation in the city or town concerned:\n<\/p>\n
The specified categories of landlords by whom proceedings can
\nbe initiated under Chapter III-A are  defined in Section 23-J which
\nreads as under:-\n<\/p>\n
\t“Sec.23J.   Definition of landlord for the
\npurposes of Chapter III-A.___For the purposes of
\nthis Chapter “landlord” means a landlord who is ___<\/p>\n
(i)\ta retired servant of any Government
\nincluding a retired member of
\nDefence Services; or<\/p>\n
(ii)\ta retired servant of a company owned
\nor controlled wither by the Central or
\nState Government; or<\/p>\n
(iii)\ta widow or a divorced wife; or<\/p>\n
(iv)\tphysically handicapped person; or<\/p>\n
(v)\ta servant of any Government
\nincluding a member of defence
\nservices who, according to his service
\nconditions, is not entitled to
\nGovernment accommodation on his
\nposting to a place where he owns a
\nhouse or is entitled to such
\naccommodation only on payment of a
\npenal rent on his posting to such
\nplace.”\n<\/p>\n
\tSuch a landlord seeking eviction of his or her tenant on the
\nground of bona fide requirement of residential or non residential
\naccommodation, the ground as defined in Section 23-A of the Act,
\nmust have recourse to Chapter III-A only.  Section 11-A of the Act
\nprovides that the provisions of Chapter III so far as they relate to
\nmatter specially provided in Chapter III-A shall not apply to the
\nlandlord defined in Section 23-J.  Section 45 of the Act also provides
\nthat as to the matters which the Rent Controlling Authority is
\nempowered by or under the Act to decide are not entertainable by
\nCivil Court.  The effect of these provisions is that a landlord as
\ndefined in Section 23-J of the Act cannot have recourse to the forum
\nof Civil Court.\n<\/p>\n
Broadly speaking, the main features of Chapter III-A are that it
\nprovides a summary procedure for the hearing of applications on the
\nlines similar to those contained in Order 37 of the CPC. The tenant
\ncannot contest the prayer for eviction from accommodation unless
\nleave to defend is sought for by moving an application within the
\nprescribed period of time and allowed.\tDefault in appearance or
\nrefusal of leave results in the statement made by the landlord in the
\napplication for eviction being deemed to have been admitted by the
\ntenant obliging the Rent Controlling Authority to pass an order of
\neviction.  Where leave is granted to the tenant to contest the
\napplication, the Rent Controlling Authority shall hold an enquiry
\nconsistently with the practice and procedure of a Court of Small
\nCauses.\t The requirement of the landlord is  presumed to be bona fide
\nunless the contrary is proved, that is to say, the burden of proof is
\nplaced on the tenant to rebut the case of the landlord contrary to the
\nordinary procedure in a Civil Court where the burden of proof lies on
\nthe landlord. As against an order of eviction passed by the RCA, a
\nrevision lies to the High Court and the remedy of appeal is excluded.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe submission of Shri S.S. Ray, the learned senior counsel for
\nthe appellants, has been that the procedure and remedy provided by
\nChapter III-A are summary and onerous to the tenant.  Mainly
\nspeaking, the tenant is not entitled to defend himself as of right, the
\nburden of proof is shifted on him from the very inception and he does
\nnot have a right of appeal.\n<\/p>\n
\tAt the very outset, we may point out that the issue as to the
\nconstitutional validity of the provisions contained in Chapter III-A of
\nthe Act is not before us.  The proceedings have originated in the
\njurisdiction of Rent Controlling Authority where the question of vires
\ncould not have been raised and gone into.  Before the High Court,
\nduring the hearing of revision filed by the appellants, the plea was
\nfaintly raised and urged but turned down.  In the absence of proper
\npleadings and the Advocate General of the State having been put on
\nnotice, we do not deem it proper to enter into the question of
\nconstitutional validity.  However, it needs to be noted that the
\ncontroversy as to the constitutional validity of Chapter III-A on the
\nground of being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution as
\nconferring benefit of special procedure for eviction of tenant on
\ncertain classified landlords and the classification suffering from
\ninvidious discrimination is a beaten track.  All these questions have
\nbeen exhaustively gone into by a Division Bench of the High Court of
\nMadhya Pradesh presided over by J.S. Verma, J. (as His Lordship
\nthen was) in B. Johnson Vs. C.S. Naidu, AIR 1986 MP 72, and the
\nchallenge was turned down.  In\tKewal Singh Vs. Lajwanti, (1980) 1
\nSCC 290, a similar challenge laid against similar provisions of the
\nDelhi Rent Control Act, 1958, was rejected.  Similarly in Ravi Dutt
\nSharma Vs. Ratanlal Bhargava, (1984) 2 SCC 75, challenge to the
\nclassification between landlords in order to provide benefit of the
\nspecial procedure only to some of them constituting a distinct class
\nwas upheld as permissible and reasonable classification.  Both these
\ndecisions were relied on by the Division Bench of the High Court of
\nMadhya Pradesh in B. Johnson’s case (supra).  To the same effect is
\na later Full Bench decision of Madhya Pradesh High Court in
\nKunjulal Yadu Vs. Parasram Sharma, 2000 (II) MPJR 123.\tSo
\nmuch observation would suffice for the purpose of the present case as
\nin our opinion, the present one is not a fit case, on the basis of the
\npleadings and material available, to examine the question of
\nconstitutional validity of Chapter III-A of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe principal issue is that out of three co-landlords, the
\nrespondents herein, one is a widow falling within the definition of
\n‘landlord’ as defined in Section 23-J of the Act and hence entitled to
\nhave recourse to the provisions of Chapter III-A while other two co-
\nlandlords do not fall within the definition of ‘landlord’ in Section 23-
\nJ.  Though the requirement pleaded is of all the landlords, i.e. the
\nwidow as also  the other two co-landlords, it is only the widow who
\ncan take advantage of the special procedure for eviction but the others
\ntwo, who actually require the premises for their non-residential use,
\nshould have gone to Civil Court and cannot, under the law, have
\nrecourse to the forum of Rent Controlling Authority.\n<\/p>\n
The submission of Shri S.S. Ray, the learned senior counsel for
\nthe appellants, is that inasmuch as the requirement is of non-classified
\nlandlords to whom the forum of Civil Court under Section 12 of the
\nAct is open, they could not have invoked Chapter III-A to their
\nadvantage and to the prejudice of the tenant-appellants and should
\nhave filed their suits for eviction before the Civil Court.  It is further
\nsubmitted that unless that view is taken the provisions of Chapter III-
\nA would be liable to be struck down as violative of Article 14 of the
\nConstitution and, therefore, the provisions of Chapter III-A should be
\nso read as to save them from constitutional invalidity.\t The submission
\nmade by the learned senior counsel for the appellants, though
\nattractive, is liable to be discarded on scrutiny of its merit.\n<\/p>\n
\tWe will first note how the issue has been dealt with by the High
\nCourt of Madhya Pradesh.  In  Shivraj Jat Vs. Smt. Asha Lata Yadav
\nand Ors.-   1989 MPJR HC 336, a widow filed an application under
\nSection 23-A of the Act for eviction of the tenant from the leased
\npremises on the ground that the same was bona fide required for the
\npurpose of starting the business of her major son who was also
\narrayed as a co-plaintiff.   One of the pleas raised on behalf of the
\ntenant was that only one of the applicants being a widow  a
\n‘landlord’ as defined by Section 23-J of the Act, while the other
\napplicant was not such a landlord, the special procedure provided by
\nSection 23-A of the Act was not available to them.  It was held by the
\nDivision Bench that the provisions of Section 23-A (b) were
\nunambiguous. The legislation enables a “landlord” to seek eviction if
\nthe leased premises are bona fide required by the landlord for starting
\nthe business of a major son or daughter of the landlord; there can be
\nno logic or justification for denying that relief to the landlord because
\nthe major son or daughter of the landlord also happens to be co-owner
\nof the leased premises.\t The case was held to be covered by Section
\n23-A(b) of the Act.  A similar issue arose for consideration by a Full
\nBench of Madhya Pradesh High Court in Harbans Singh Vs. Smt.
\nMargrat G. Bhingardive\tAIR 1990 MP 191.  The question posed
\nbefore the Full Bench  was : “Whether out of  several landlords of an
\naccommodation including a widow, an application for eviction of the
\ntenant by the widow alone, on the ground of her own bona fide need
\nor joint need of herself and that of her married sons and their children,
\nwould be competent before the Rent Controlling Authority under
\nSection 23-A(a) read with Section 23-J(iii) of the Act”.  The premises
\nin question were let out by the late husband of the landlady and after
\nhis death the widow as well as her children succeeded to the tenanted
\npremises by inheritance and therefore the widow and her children all
\nbecame co-owners and joint landlords thereof.  The application for
\neviction was filed by the widow alone.\tIt was urged that the widow
\nalone cannot maintain an application under Section 23-A of the Act
\neither for her own bona fide need or for the joint need of herself and
\nher married sons who are also joint landlords but do not belong to the
\nspecial class envisaged in Section 23-J of the Act and have not joined
\nthe widow in making application for eviction.  The Full Bench held
\nthat application filed by the widow alone as one of the landlords was
\ncompetent.  The Full Bench further held :-\n<\/p>\n
\t“If we examine the language of
\nSection 23-A and clause (a) thereof it would
\nbe clear from the plain and unambiguous
\nwords and language used\t therein that they
\nare capable of only one construction that the
\nperson who falls in the category of special
\nclass of landlords is authorized to take
\naction for eviction of the tenant either for his
\nown bona fide need or for the bona fide need
\nof any member of his family who may not
\nbelong to any of the special class of
\nlandlords.  If we accept the submissions
\nadvanced by the learned counsel for the
\ntenant\/applicant then in that event we would
\nbe doing violence to the plain language and
\nwords used in the provisions under
\nconsideration by reading into the said
\nprovisions  the words that the member of the
\nfamily for whose bona fide need, the
\napplication has been filed by the special
\nclass of landlord, should also belong to that
\ncategory. But law of Interpretation of Statute
\ndoes not permit such a course.\n<\/p>\n
Consequently the result is that the
\napplication made by the widow\/non-\n<\/p>\n
applicant under S.23-A(a) of the Act for
\neviction of the tenant\/applicant herein on the
\nground of her bona fide need and that of her
\nmarried sons who are members of his family
\nis competent and maintainable before the
\nRent Controlling Authority”(para 17).\n<\/p>\n
“.out of several landlords of an
\naccommodation  including a widow, an
\napplication for eviction of the tenant by the
\nwidow alone, on the ground of her own bona
\nfide need or joint need of herself and that of
\nher married sons and their children, who are
\nmembers of his family would be competent
\nbefore the Rent Controlling Authority under
\nS.23-A(a) read with S.23-J of the Act” (para\n<\/p>\n
18).\n<\/p>\n
   We  find ourselves in agreement with the view of the law
\ntaken by the High Court of M.P. in Shivraj Jat’s case (supra) and
\nHarbans Singh’s case (supra).  An analysis of Section 23-A(b) of the
\nAct  shows that an application seeking eviction of tenant thereunder is
\nmaintainable if :- (i) the accommodation is let for non-residential
\npurpose; (ii) it is required bona fide by the landlord for the purpose of
\ncontinuing or starting (a) his business, or (b) business of any of his
\nmajor sons or unmarried daughters; (iii) the landlord is the owner of
\nsuch accommodation or is holding accommodation for benefit of any
\nperson who requires the accommodation; and (iv) the landlord or such
\nperson has no other reasonably suitable non-residential
\naccommodation of his own in his occupation in the city or town
\nconcerned.\n<\/p>\n
It is well settled by  at least three decisions of this Court,
\nnamely, Sri Ram Pasricha Vs. Jagannath and Ors.\t (1976) 4 SCC
\n184, Kanta Goel Vs. B.P. Pathan and Ors.-   (1977) 2 SCC 814 and
\nPal Singh Vs. Sunder Singh (dead) by Lrs. and Ors.  (1989) 1 SCC
\n444 that one of the co-owners can alone and in his own right file a suit
\nfor ejectment of tenant and it is  no defence open to tenant to question
\nthe maintainability of the suit on the ground that other co-owners were
\nnot joined as parties to the suit. When the property forming subject
\nmatter of eviction proceedings is owned by several owners, every co-
\nowner owns every part and every bit of the joint property along with
\nothers and it cannot be said that he is only a part owner or a fractional
\nowner of the property so long as the property has not been partitioned.
\nHe can alone maintain a suit for eviction of tenant without joining the
\nother co-owners if such other co-owners do not object.\t\tIn Shri Ram
\nPasricha’s case (supra) reliance was placed by the tenant on the
\nEnglish rule that if two or more landlords institute a suit for
\npossession on the ground that a dwelling house is required for
\noccupation of one of them as a residence the suit would fail; the
\nrequirement must be of all the landlords. The Court noted that the
\nEnglish rule was not followed by the High Courts of Calcutta and
\nGujarat which High Courts have respectfully dissented from the rule
\nof English law.\t This Court held that a decree could be passed in
\nfavour of the plaintiff though he was not the absolute and full owner
\nof the premises because he required the premises for his own use and
\nalso satisfied the requirement of being “if he is the owner”, the
\nexpression as employed by Section 13(1)(f) of W.B. Premises
\nTenancy Act, 1956.\n<\/p>\n
It follows that a widow, who is a co-owner and landlady of the
\npremises can in her own right initiate proceedings for eviction under
\nSection 23-A(b), as analysed hereinbefore, without joining other co-
\nowners\/co-landlords as party to the proceedings if they do not object
\nto the initiation of proceedings by such landlady, because she is the
\nowner of the property and requires the tenanted accommodation for
\nthe purpose of continuing or starting the business of any of her major
\nsons.  The major sons though co-owners\/co-landlords may not have
\nbeen joined as party to the proceedings but it would not adversely
\naffect the maintainability of the proceedings.\tIt would also not make
\nany difference if they are also joined as party to the proceedings.
\nTheir presence in the proceedings is suggestive of their concurrence
\nwith the widow landlady maintaining the proceedings in her own
\nright.\tThe presence of such co-landlords, as co-plaintiffs or co-
\napplicants, as are not classified landlords as defined in Section 23-J of
\nthe Act does not alter the nature of claim preferred by the widow
\nlandlady and therefore does not take the proceedings out of the scope
\nof Section 23-A (b).  Conversely, the major sons or any of them suing
\nalone without joining a widow co-landlord as party to the proceedings
\nmay institute a suit before a Civil Court under Section 12 of the Act
\npleading that the non-residential premises were required bona fide by
\nthem or any of them for the purpose of continuing or starting their
\nown or his own business as they would be owners thereof and the
\nrequirement will be theirs.  It would not make any material difference
\nif the widow co-landlord was joined as party to the proceedings either
\nas plaintiff or as co-applicant\t because the case pleaded in the plaint
\nwould squarely fall within the ambit of clause (f) sub-Section (1) of
\nSection 12 of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
Here we may divert a little and refer to a decision of this Court
\nin Messrs. Importers and Manufacturers Ltd. Vs. Pheroze Framroze
\nTaraporewala and Ors.  AIR 1953 SC 73.\tThe local law (applicable
\nto Bombay) provided for a suit between landlord and tenant being
\nfiled in the Small Causes Court.  In the suit filed by the landlord
\nagainst the tenant, the sub-tenant was also impleaded as a party.  The
\ndefendant objected to the maintainability of the suit before the Small
\nCauses Court submitting that the suit being not one between landlord
\nand tenant alone it would not be within the competence of the Small
\nCauses Court to try the same.  This Court held that a sub-tenant was a
\nproper party in a suit for ejectment between landlord and tenant.  The
\njoinder of such a proper party cannot alter the character of the suit and
\ndoes not make the suit any the less a suit between the landlord and the
\ntenant; to hold otherwise will be to encourage multiplicity of the suits
\nwhich will result in no end of inconvenience and confusion.  It is clear
\nfrom the ratio of this decision that presence of proper party does not
\nalter the basic character of the suit and availability of forum is to be
\ndetermined by examining the essential nature of the suit.\n<\/p>\n
The submission of the learned senior counsel for the tenant-
\nappellants if accepted may create a diabolical situation.  The
\nrequirement pleaded is the requirement of a widow landlady for
\ncontinuing or starting the business of her major sons.\tIn proceedings
\nfor eviction of a tenant it is permissible for all the co-owner landlords
\nto join as plaintiffs. Rather, this is normally done.  Now, if they all file
\na claim before the Civil Court an objection may possibly be raised on
\nbehalf of the tenant-defendant that the widow landlady being one of
\nthe claimants for eviction she must go to the Rent Controlling
\nAuthority under Chapter III-A.\tIf they collectively join in initiating
\nthe proceedings for eviction of the tenant before the Rent Controlling
\nAuthority under Chapter III-A the tenant-defendant may object that
\nthe requirement being that of the major sons who are themselves
\nlandlord-applicants the claim should have been filed before the Civil
\nCourt, as is the plea before us.   How such dilemma can be resolved?\n<\/p>\n
Both the learned senior counsel for the parties stated that there
\nis no specific statutory provision nor a binding precedent available
\nproviding resolution to the problem posed.  Procedural law cannot
\nbetray the substantive law by submitting to subordination of
\ncomplexity.  Courts equipped with power to interpret law are often
\nposed with queries which may be ultimate.  The judicial steps of judge
\nthen do stir to solve novel problems by neat innovations.  When the
\nstatute does not provide the path and precedents abstain to lead, then
\nthey are the sound logic, rational reasoning, common sense and urge
\nfor public good which play as guides of those who decide. Wrong
\nmust not be left unredeemed and right not left unenforced.  Forum
\nought to be revealed when it does not clearly exist or when it is
\ndoubted where it exists.  When the law\tprocedural or substantive
\ndoes not debar any two seekers of justice from joining hands and
\nmoving together, they must have a common path.\tMultiplicity of
\nproceedings should be avoided and same cause of action available to
\ntwo at a time must not be forced to split and tried in two different fora
\nas far as practicable and permissible.\n<\/p>\n
Reference to, or deriving aid from, certain legal maxims will be
\nuseful.\t Ubi jus ibi remedium  there is no wrong without a remedy.
\nWhere there is a right there is a forum for its enforcement. According
\nto Broom’s Legal Maxims (Tenth Edition, pp.118-119), the maxim
\nhas been considered so valuable that it led to the invention of the form
\nof action called an action on the case.\t Where no precedent of a writ
\ncan be produced,  the clerks in Chancery shall agree in forming a new
\none.  The principle adopted by courts of law accordingly is, that the
\nnovelty of the particular complaint alleged in an action on the case is
\nno objection, provided that an injury cognizable by law be shown to
\nhave been inflicted on the plaintiff, in which case, although there be
\nno precedent, the common law will judge according to the law of
\nnature and the public good.  If a man has a right, he must, “have a
\nmeans to vindicate and maintain it, and a remedy if he is injured in the
\nexercise and enjoyment of it, and, indeed, it is vain thing to imagine a
\nright without a remedy, for want of right and want of remedy are
\nreciprocal”.\n<\/p>\n
\tAs held in Smt. Ganga Bai Vs. Vijay Kumar and Ors.
\n(1974) 2  SCC 393 there is an inherent right in every person to bring a
\nsuit of a civil nature and unless the suit is barred by statute one may,
\nat one’s peril, bring a suit of one’s choice.  It is no answer to a suit,
\nhowsoever frivolous the claim, that the law confers no such right to
\nsue.  A suit for its maintainability requires no authority of law and it is
\nenough that no statute bars the suit.\n<\/p>\n
\tPlaintiff is dominus litis, that is, master of, or having dominion
\nover, the case.\t  He is the person who has carriage and control of an
\naction. In case of conflict of jurisdiction the choice ought to lie with
\nthe plaintiff to choose the forum best suited to him unless there be a
\nrule of law excluding access to a forum of plaintiff’s choice or
\npermitting recourse to a forum will be opposed to public policy or will
\nbe an abuse of the process of law.\n<\/p>\n
\tReference may also be had to Section 17 of CPC which
\nprovides that where a suit is to obtain relief respecting immoveable
\nproperty situate within the jurisdiction of different Courts, the suit
\nmay be instituted in any Court within the local limits of whose
\njurisdiction any portion of the property is situated; provided that, in
\nrespect of the value of the subject-matter of the suit, the entire claim is
\ncongnisable by such Court.  The provision confers right on plaintiff
\nsuing on consolidate cause of action to choose one out of several fora
\navailable to him and it is his convenience and sweet will which will
\nprevail.  The provision is not\tan answer to the problem posed\tin the
\npresent case; nevertheless the principle underlying thereunder can be
\nread out and pressed in service.  In Nrisingha Charan Nandy
\nChoudhry Vs. Rajniti Prasad Singh and Ors.  AIR 1936 PC 189,
\ntheir Lordships referred to Section 17 of the CPC and termed it as  the
\nordinary rule for determining the Court which can take congnizance of
\na suit for immoveable property situated within the local limits of two
\nor more tribunals.  Where cause of action is one against several
\ndefendants and they reside in different jurisdictions, the plaintiff may,
\nunder Section 20 of CPC file the suit in a court within whose
\njurisdiction any one of the  defendants, at the time of the
\ncommencement of the suit, actually and voluntarily resides.  Thus in
\ncase of a cause of action being triable in more than one forum it may
\nbe tried by any one forum subject to any other provision or rule of
\nlaw.\n<\/p>\n
\tReverting back to the issue before us, the cause of action is one
\n requirement of a major son, who himself is a co-owner. It is capable
\nof being construed in two ways, depending on from the point of view
\nof which of the landlords we look at.  From the point of view of the
\nwidow landlady and owner it is a case of the accommodation let for
\nnon-residential purpose required bona fide by the landlady for the
\npurpose of continuing or staring the business of any of her major sons,
\nwithin the meaning of Section 23-A(b) of the Act.  From the point of
\nview of the major son himself, who is also himself an owner, it is a
\ncase of the accommodation let for non-residential purpose required
\nbona fide by the landlord for the purpose of continuing or starting his
\nbusiness as he is owner thereof, within the meaning of Section
\n12(1)(f) of the Act.  In the former case the cause of action is triable by
\nway of an application before R.C.A. In the latter case the cause of
\naction is triable in a suit instituted in Civil Court.\tAny one of them
\nmay singally commence the proceedings without impleading the other
\nor by impleading the other as a non-applicant or defendant in pro-
\nforma capacity in which case the choice of forum would present no
\ndifficulty.  The former shall go to R.C.A.  The latter shall go to Civil
\nCourt.\tHowever, the law does not prevent the co-owner landlords
\nfrom joining together to sue on the cause of action common to them
\nall.  And if they do so the conflict of jurisdiction arises.  The choice of
\nforum, in such a case, must of necessity be left open to the plaintiffs.
\nOtherwise they will be left without remedy.  Keeping in view the
\nthree relevant principles (i) that every wrong must have a remedy and
\nevery right to relief must have a forum for enforcement, (ii) that
\nplaintiff is dominus litis, and (iii) that one co-owner\/landlord can file a
\nsuit for ejectment of tenant and it is not necessary that all co-
\nowner\/landlords must jointly sue for ejectment though they are not
\nprevented from\trather entitled to  joining together and suing jointly
\nif they wish to do so, we proceed to state our conclusions as under :-\n<\/p>\n
(i) where a claim for eviction is filed by a landlord, or a co-landlord,
\nbelonging to any one of the five categories defined in Section 23-J of
\nthe Act, as  the sole applicant without objection by other co-landlords
\nwho have not joined as co-applicants and the nature of claim for
\neviction is covered by Section 23-A(b) of the Act, the proceedings
\nwould lie only before the Rent Controlling Authority;\n<\/p>\n
(ii) where a claim for eviction is filed by a landlord or by such a co-
\nlandlord who does not belong to any of the categories defined by
\nSection 23-J and the other co-landlord\/landlady falling in one of the
\ncategories defined in Section 23-J is not joined as co-plaintiff the
\nclaim shall have to be filed only by way of a suit instituted in a Civil
\nCourt;\n<\/p>\n
(iii) if the proceedings are initiated by such co-owner landlords, one or
\nmore of whom belong to Section 23-J category while some others are
\nthose not falling within the definition of ‘landlord’ under Section 23-J
\nand the requirement pleaded provides a cause of action\tcollectively to
\nall the landlords arrayed as plaintiffs or applicants, the choice of
\nforum lies with the landlords.\tThey may file an application before
\nR.C.A. under Chapter III-A or may file a civil suit in a Civil Court
\nunder Section 12 of the Act; in either case the proceedings would be
\ncompetent and maintainable.\n<\/p>\n
\tWe are, therefore, of the opinion that there is no merit in the
\nplea raised on behalf of the appellants that the three respondents, one
\nwidow and her two major sons, could not have initiated proceedings
\nfor eviction before the Rent Controlling Authority.  We have carefully
\nperused the two applications for eviction filed by the respondents. The
\nbonafide requirement pleaded is of the widow landlady, the
\nrespondent no.1, who requires the suit premises for Govinda,
\nrespondent no.2 for starting his business and that of another son
\nHemant, the respondent no.3 for continuing the business which
\npresently he is carrying on in rented premises.\t Respondents 2 and 3
\nbeing major sons of the widow respondent no.1,\tsuch requirement
\nclearly falls also within the purview of Section 23-A (b) of the Act.
\nThe proceedings initiated before R.C.A. do not suffer from want of
\njurisdictional competence.\n<\/p>\n
\tSo far as the challenge to proof of requirement is concerned it
\nmerits\t a summary   dismissal.\t     The  Rent Controlling Authority
\nand the High Court, both, have on a meticulous evaluation of evidence
\nfound the requirement proved.  None of the landlords is possessed of
\nany other suitable alternative accommodation of his or her own to
\nsatisfy the requirement found proved.  A landlord cannot be
\ncompelled to carry on business in rented premises and the proved
\nrequirement cannot be defeated by the tenant submitting that the
\nlandlord can start or comfortably continue to run his business in
\nrented premises.  It has come in evidence that the landlords have
\nsecured possession of some premises in Ahilyapura locality situated at
\na short distance from the suit premises but the Ahilyapura
\naccommodation is again a tenanted accommodation and hence
\nirrelevant for defeating the claim of the landlords. To be an alternative
\naccommodation relevant within the meaning of Section 12(1)(f) or
\nSection\t 23-A(b) it must be ‘of his own’, that is, the one ‘owned’ by
\nthe landlord.  Another alternative accommodation pointed out by the
\ntenant is the one  situated on the first floor of the building. It has come
\nin the evidence that the second floor of the building is used for
\nresidence of the landlords while the first floor is used partly as a
\ngodown and partly for stitching\t the clothes which are sold as
\nreadymade garments in the shop of respondent no.3.   To amount to an
\nalternate non-residential accommodation so as to defeat the
\nrequirement of the landlord for the suit premises, it should be
\nreasonably suitable non-residential accommodation.  It should be
\nsuitable in all respects as the suit accommodation is.\tIn Shiv Sarup
\nGupta Vs. Dr. Mahesh Chand Gupta  (1999) 6 SCC 222 this Court
\nhas held that an alternative accommodation, to entail denial of the
\nclaim of the landlord, must be reasonably suitable, obviously in
\ncomparison with the suit accommodation wherefrom the landlord is
\nseeking eviction.  The availability of another accommodation, suitable
\nand convenient in all respects as the suit accommodation, may have an
\nadverse bearing on the finding as to bona fides of the landlord if he
\nunreasonably refuses to occupy the available premises to satisfy his
\nalleged need.  The bona fides of the need of the landlord for the
\npremises or additional premises have to be determined by the Court
\nby applying objective standards and once the Court is satisfied of such
\nbona fides then in the matter of choosing out of more
\naccommodations than one available to the landlord, his subjective
\nchoice shall be respected by the Court.\t For the business, which the
\nrespondents no.2 and 3 propose to start or continue respectively, an
\naccommodation situated on the first floor cannot be said to be an
\nalternative suitable accommodation in comparison with the shops
\nsituated on the ground floor.  A shop on the first floor cannot attract
\nthe same number of customers and earn the same business as a shop
\nsituated on the ground floor would do.\tMoreover, there is no evidence
\nadduced by the appellants to show that in M.T. Cloth market shops are
\nalso situated on first floor of buildings and attract the same business as
\nthe shops on ground floor do.  The High Court and the R.C.A. have
\nheld none of the premises pointed out by the tenant-appellants such
\nalternate accommodation as may defeat the respondents’ claim.  We
\nfind no reason to take a different view.  Between the years 1987 and
\n1989 late Krishna Das, the then sole owner of the building, had sold
\nthree shops but that was an event which had taken place in the life-
\ntime of late Krishna Das and cannot have relevance for denying the
\nclaim of the respondent-landlords filed in the year 1995.\n<\/p>\n
For all the foregoing reasons we find the appeals devoid of any
\nmerit and liable to be dismissed.  They are dismissed with costs.
\nHowever, each of the appellants is allowed four months time  for
\nvacating the suit premises subject to each of them clearing all arrears
\nof rent and filing usual undertaking, within a period of four weeks
\nfrom today.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Dhannalal vs Kalawatibai & Ors on 8 July, 2000 Author: R Lahoti Bench: R.C. Lahoti, B.N. Agrawal. CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 3652 of 2002 Appeal (civil) 3653 of 2002 PETITIONER: DHANNALAL Vs. RESPONDENT: KALAWATIBAI & ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 08\/07\/2000 BENCH: R.C. LAHOTI, B.N. AGRAWAL. JUDGMENT: R.C. Lahoti, J. Leave granted. […]<\/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-86584","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nDhannalal vs Kalawatibai & Ors on 8 July, 2000 - 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\/dhannalal-vs-kalawatibai-ors-on-8-july-2000-2\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Dhannalal vs Kalawatibai & Ors on 8 July, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dhannalal-vs-kalawatibai-ors-on-8-july-2000-2\" \/>\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=\"2000-07-07T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-04-11T13:02:21+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=\"34 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dhannalal-vs-kalawatibai-ors-on-8-july-2000-2#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dhannalal-vs-kalawatibai-ors-on-8-july-2000-2\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Dhannalal vs Kalawatibai & Ors on 8 July, 2000\",\"datePublished\":\"2000-07-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-04-11T13:02:21+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dhannalal-vs-kalawatibai-ors-on-8-july-2000-2\"},\"wordCount\":6806,\"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\\\/dhannalal-vs-kalawatibai-ors-on-8-july-2000-2#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dhannalal-vs-kalawatibai-ors-on-8-july-2000-2\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dhannalal-vs-kalawatibai-ors-on-8-july-2000-2\",\"name\":\"Dhannalal vs Kalawatibai & Ors on 8 July, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2000-07-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-04-11T13:02:21+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dhannalal-vs-kalawatibai-ors-on-8-july-2000-2#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dhannalal-vs-kalawatibai-ors-on-8-july-2000-2\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dhannalal-vs-kalawatibai-ors-on-8-july-2000-2#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Dhannalal vs Kalawatibai & Ors on 8 July, 2000\"}]},{\"@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":"Dhannalal vs Kalawatibai & Ors on 8 July, 2000 - 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\/dhannalal-vs-kalawatibai-ors-on-8-july-2000-2","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Dhannalal vs Kalawatibai & Ors on 8 July, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dhannalal-vs-kalawatibai-ors-on-8-july-2000-2","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2000-07-07T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-04-11T13:02:21+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":"34 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dhannalal-vs-kalawatibai-ors-on-8-july-2000-2#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dhannalal-vs-kalawatibai-ors-on-8-july-2000-2"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Dhannalal vs Kalawatibai & Ors on 8 July, 2000","datePublished":"2000-07-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-04-11T13:02:21+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dhannalal-vs-kalawatibai-ors-on-8-july-2000-2"},"wordCount":6806,"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\/dhannalal-vs-kalawatibai-ors-on-8-july-2000-2#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dhannalal-vs-kalawatibai-ors-on-8-july-2000-2","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dhannalal-vs-kalawatibai-ors-on-8-july-2000-2","name":"Dhannalal vs Kalawatibai & Ors on 8 July, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2000-07-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-04-11T13:02:21+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dhannalal-vs-kalawatibai-ors-on-8-july-2000-2#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dhannalal-vs-kalawatibai-ors-on-8-july-2000-2"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dhannalal-vs-kalawatibai-ors-on-8-july-2000-2#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Dhannalal vs Kalawatibai & Ors on 8 July, 2000"}]},{"@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\/86584","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=86584"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/86584\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=86584"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=86584"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=86584"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}