{"id":89794,"date":"2006-06-16T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2006-06-15T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-r-arulmozhi-vs-m-sadasivam-on-16-june-2006-2"},"modified":"2016-10-23T13:40:52","modified_gmt":"2016-10-23T08:10:52","slug":"dr-r-arulmozhi-vs-m-sadasivam-on-16-june-2006-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-r-arulmozhi-vs-m-sadasivam-on-16-june-2006-2","title":{"rendered":"Dr.R.Arulmozhi vs M.Sadasivam on 16 June, 2006"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
Dr.R.Arulmozhi vs M.Sadasivam on 16 June, 2006<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS           \n\nDated: 16\/06\/2006 \n\nCoram \n\nThe Hon'ble Mr.JUSTICE S.RAJESWARAN       \n\nC.R.P.(NPD) No.460 of 2006  \n\nDr.R.Arulmozhi                                 .. Petitioner\n\n-Vs-\n\nM.Sadasivam                                    .. Respondent\n\n        Revision Petition filed against  the  judgment  dated  19.10.2005,  in\nR.C.A.No.1\/2005 on the file of the Appellate Authority (Sub-Court) Poonamallee\nconfirming the order in R.C.O.P.No.22\/2000, dated 24.9.2004 on the file of the\nCourt of Rent Controller (District Munsif), Ambattur.\n\n!For Petitioner         :  Mr.T.P.Manoharan\n\n^For Respondents        :  Mr.K.Elango\n\n:ORDER  \n<\/pre>\n
        This  Revision has been filed under Sec.25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings
\n(Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1960 (hereinafter called ‘the  Act’)  against  the
\njudgment  dated  19.10.2005 made in RCA No.1\/2005 on the file of the Appellate
\nAuthority, (Sub-Court) Poonamallee, confirming the order dated 24.9.2004  made
\nin  R.C.O.P.No.22\/2000  on  the file of the Rent Controller (District Munsif),
\nAmbattur.\n<\/p>\n
        2.  The unsuccessful tenant before  both  the  authorities  below  has
\nfiled the  above  revision  petition.    The  respondent\/landlord  filed  RCOP
\nNo.22\/2000 on the file of the learned Rent Controller, Ambattur praying for an
\norder of eviction under Sec.10(2)(i), 10(2)(ii)(b) and 10(3)(a)(i) of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
        3.  The Rent Controller by order dated 24.9.2004 ordered  eviction  on
\nthe  ground of wilful default and owner’s occupation and dismissed the RCOP on
\nthe ground of different use by the tenant.  Aggrieved by the same, the  tenant
\nfiled  RCA  No.1\/2005  and  the  Appellate Authority by order dated 19.10.2005
\ndismissed the same  thereby  confirmed  the  order  of  the  Rent  Controller.
\nChallenging  the  concurrent  judgments,  the above revision petition has been
\nfiled by the tenant.\n<\/p>\n
        4.  The respondent\/landlord is the absolute owner of the ground  floor
\nflat   bearing   Door  No.45\/7,  Shanthiniketan  Colony,  Anna  Nagar  Western
\nExtension, Chennai.600 101.  The petitioner and the respondent herein  entered
\ninto  a lease agreement on 28.8.1996, according to which, the tenant agreed to
\npay a sum of Rs.1,600\/- p.m towards rent and a sum of Rs.2,000\/-  p.m  towards
\namenities.   Thus  the total monthly rent payable by the tenant is Rs.3,600\/-.
\nA sum of Rs.21,600\/- has been paid by the tenant as advance.  The relationship
\nbetween the parties got strained resulting in  the  tenant  sending  a  letter
\ndated  28.12.1999  informing  the  landlord  that he would be sending a sum of
\nRs.1,600\/- only from  December  1999,  as  the  promised  amenities  were  not
\nprovided by  the  landlord.    The tenant further informed in the above letter
\nthat he had paid a sum of Rs.2,000\/- every month in  excess  during  the  past
\nthree  years and therefore the excess amount paid towards the amenities should
\nbe refunded by the landlord.  The landlord sent a legal notice dated 12.2.2000
\nclaiming arrears of rent not only at the admitted rate of Rs.3,600\/- but  also
\non the  basis  of  the  proposed  enhancement  as stated in the agreement.  He
\nclaimed arrears and the payment of rent from the  ;month  of  August  1997  to
\nJanuary 1999  and  also March 1 999 to February 2000.  He further informed the
\ntenant that he wanted the property for his own use and occupation  and  blamed
\nthe  tenant for using the property for non-residential purpose, even though it
\nwas let out for residential purpose.  The petitioner\/tenant sent a reply dated
\n27.2.2000 claiming that a sum of Rs.78,000\/- was paid  by  him  as  an  excess
\namount  towards the amenities and an excess advance amount of Rs.20,000\/- held
\nby the respondent\/landlord.   In  such  circumstances,  the  petitioner\/tenant
\ncalled upon the respondent\/landlord to return the excess amount of Rs.98,000\/-
\n(78,000 + 20,000) and till such time adjust the excess amount held at the rate
\nof Rs.1,600\/-  per  month  from the month of January onwards.  After sending a
\nreply dated 15.3.2 000 the respondent\/landlord filed the RCOP as stated above.\n<\/p>\n
        5.  The Rent Controller after evaluating the evidence held that having
\naccepted to pay a sum of  Rs.3,600\/-  per  month  by  entering  into  a  lease
\nagreement,  the  petitioner\/tenant  cannot  be  permitted  to  say  that he is
\nentitled to pay only a sum of  Rs.1,600\/-per  month  and  the  alleged  excess
\namount  paid  by  him  in the past towards amenities should be adjusted in the
\nfuture rents.  While rejecting the petition on the ground  that  the  property
\nwas  used for some other purpose, the Rent Controller accepted the case of the
\nrespondent\/landlord that the  premises  was  required  for  his  own  use  and
\noccupation.   The  Appellate  Authority was in agreement with the order of the
\nRent Controller and therefore dismissed the appeal.\n<\/p>\n
        6.  Heard both the learned counsel appearing on either side.   I  have
\nalso perused the documents filed in support of their submissions.\n<\/p>\n
        7.   Learned counsel for the petitioner\/tenant contended that both the
\nauthorities did not consider and discuss the facts, pleadings, contents of the
\nexhibits and depositions with reference to the ingredients to Sec.10(2)(i) and
\n10(3)(a)(i) of the Act.  The learned  counsel  has  also  submitted  that  the
\nexcess amount lying in the hands of the respondent\/landlord should be adjusted
\ntowards the  rent  payable  as  per Sec.7 of the Act.  As both the authorities
\nbelow did not consider the issue in the proper perspective, the order  of  the
\nauthorities below is liable to be interfered with by this court.\n<\/p>\n
        8.    He   relied  on  the  following  judgments  in  support  of  his
\ncontentions:-\n<\/p>\n
(1) 1979-II M.L.J.  326 (Pattabiraman v.  Accommodation Controller)<\/a>; (2 ) 1974
\nT.L.N.J.  245 (K.R.Loganatha  Naicker  vs.    S.R.Balasundara  Mudaliar)<\/a>;  (3)
\n1978-I M.L.J.  79 (Khader Md.  Rowther v.  G.S.Sundaram)<\/a>; (4) 2000-I-L.W.  853
\n(Narayanaswamy v.     Raman)<\/a>;  (5)  2000  (1)  SCC  451  (  chandramohan  (Vs)
\nSengottaiyan and others) (6) 2000(II M.L.J.  202 ( Mahalingam v.  Pichaiammal)
\nand (7) (2005) 4 M.L.J.  127 (Sudhandhira Devi,R.  v.  K.Navanithakrishna).\n<\/p>\n
        9.  Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent\/landlord  supported
\nthe  decision of the authorities and pointed out that by unilaterally choosing
\nto pay a sum of Rs,1,600\/- only towards the monthly rent as against Rs.3,600\/-
\nper month as agreed upon in the lease agreement, which  also  he  paid  for  a
\nperiod  of  three  years  from  the date of the lease agreement, the tenant is
\nguilty of wilful default.\n<\/p>\n
        10.  Both the  petitioner  and  the  respondent  admit  that  a  lease
\nagreement  was  entered into on 28.8.1996 and a perusal of the same shows that
\nthe petitioner herein agreed to pay  a  total  sum  of  Rs.3,600\/-  per  month
\nconsisting  of  Rs.1,600\/-  per  month  towards  rent and Rs.2,000\/- per month
\ntowards amenities to the respondent herein.  A sum of Rs.21,600\/- was required
\nto be paid under the agreement as security deposit.  It is not  disputed  that
\nthis amount  was  paid  by  the  tenant.   The petitioner\/tenant has also been
\npaying the monthly rent of Rs.3,600\/- for three years and the documents  filed
\nbefore  the  rent  controller  would  prove  that the petitioner\/tenant is not
\nproper and prompt in paying the monthly rent then and  there  when  it  became
\ndue.   Several  letters have been written by the landlord demanding the amount
\nand the petitioner\/tenant sent replies promising to pay the amounts soon.\n<\/p>\n
        11.  Admittedly, the relationship between the landlord and the  tenant
\nwas  strained as the respondent\/landlord sought to increase the rent by 10% as
\nper clause 12 of the  lease  agreement.    By  letter  dated  28.12  .99,  the
\npetitioner\/tenant  informed  the respondent\/landlord that on and from December
\n1999, he would send a sum of Rs.1,600\/- per month and he is also  entitled  to
\nthe  refund of the excess amount paid by him towards amenities during the past
\nthree years.\n<\/p>\n
        12.  This conduct of the petitioner\/tenant, in my view,  is  not  bona
\nfide.   Admittedly,  he  has been paying the monthly rent of Rs.3,600\/- as per
\nthe lease agreement and nowhere in the lease agreement it was stipulated  that
\nthe  amenities charges of Rs.2,000\/- per month would become payable only after
\nsome repair works were done by the respondent\/landlord, at a cost  of  Rs.1,25
\nlakhs.   This  was  raised by the revision petitioner for the first time after
\nthe relationship got strained.  Similarly, the revision petitioner  cannot  be
\nallowed  to  say  that  the amount of Rs.2,000\/- per month paid by him towards
\namenities for the past three years should be refunded or adjusted  for  future
\nrents.   Having  paid a total sum of Rs.3,600\/- per month without any demur or
\nprotest, the revision petitioner is estopped from saying that the monthly rent
\nis only Rs.1,600\/- per month and not Rs.3,600\/- per month.  Therefore I am  in
\nagreement  with  the courts below that the tenant has committed wilful default
\nonce he admitted openly that he is entitled to send a sum  of  Rs.1,600\/-  per
\nmonth from December 1999 onwards.\n<\/p>\n
        13.   Insofar  as  the adjustment of the rent is concerned, it is true
\nthat under Sec.  7(2)(a)(b) of the Act, the landlord may receive  the  payment
\nof  an  amount  not  exceeding one month rent by way of an advance and any sum
\npaid in excess shall be refunded or adjusted at the option of the tenant.   In
\nthe  present case, the revision petitioner has paid six months’ advance amount
\nof Rs.21,600\/-.  Whereas, the respondent is entitled to a  sum  of  Rs.3,600\/-
\nalone as  advance  amount.    That  means, a sum of Rs.18,000\/- is held by the
\nrespondent\/landlord in excess, which could be  adjusted  towards  the  monthly
\nrental arrears.    That  being so, the excess advance amount could be adjusted
\nfor five months rental arrears.  As per the letter dated 5.1.2000 sent by  the
\nrespondent,  the revision petitioner did not pay any amount after January 1999
\nwhich means the revision petitioner is due to pay the monthly  rent  from  the
\nmonth of February 1999 onwards.  If these excess advance amount of Rs.18,000\/-
\nis adjusted, still the revision petitioner is due to pay the monthly rent from
\nAugust 1999  onwards.    In such circumstances, the revision petitioner cannot
\ntake shelter under Sec.7 of the Act and he has been guilty of  wilful  default
\non this score also.\n<\/p>\n
        14.   The  revision  petitioner  in  the  reply notice dated 27.2.2000
\nclaimed that the sum of Rs.98,000\/- being held by the respondent\/ landlord  as
\nexcess  amount  consisting of Rs.78,000\/- paid by him towards amenities at the
\nrate of Rs.2,000\/-per month and Rs.20,000\/- towards excess advance amount.   I
\nhave  already  held  that  the  tenant  cannot be allowed to say that the rent
\npayable by him is only Rs.1,600\/-  per  month.    But,  in  this  notice,  the
\nrevision  petitioner  has  deducted a sum of Rs.1,600\/- as one month’s advance
\nand claimed that a sum of Rs.20,00 0\/- is held by the  respondent\/landlord  as
\nexcess advance amount which is again not correct.  Only a sum of Rs.18,000\/-is
\nheld by  the  respondent\/landlord  in  excess.    But  in  his deposition, the
\nrevision petitioner has gone further and deposed that a sum  of  Rs.1,20,000\/-
\nis  held  by  the  landlord as excess amount consisting of Rs.78,000\/- towards
\namount  paid  for  amenities,  Rs.20,000\/-  as  excess  advance   amount   and
\nRs.22,000\/-  for  repair  and  maintenance  work  done  by him on the petition
\npremises.  Thus the revision  petitioner  has  been  taking  different  stance
\nwithout any evidence and such a conduct of the revision petitioner is not bona
\nfide  and I reiterate that the revision petitioner committed wilful default in
\nthe payment of agreed monthly rent.\n<\/p>\n
        15.  Now let me consider the judgments cited by  the  learned  counsel
\nfor the revision petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
        16.  In  1971-II  M.L.J.    326  cited  supra,  this court has held as
\nfollows:-\n<\/p>\n
“2.  I am unable to agree with  the  contentions  of  the  learned  Government
\nPleader.   In  a case where quasi-judicial tribunals adjudicate upon rights of
\nparties after hearing  them  it  is  but  elementary  that  they  should  give
\ndemonstrable  reasons  so that when it is scrutinised by any one in the higher
\nhierarchy  exercising  visitorial  powers  he  should  be  in  a  position  to
\nappreciate as to what was the real reason behind the order impugned or passed.
\nIt  is  now  well-settled  that such judicial authorities ought not to lightly
\nreject petitions by passing a non-speaking order which is  totally  bereft  of
\nany reasoning.  Such reasons ought to form part and parcel of the order itself
\nso  that  the  order  could  be demonstrated to be one which is sustainable or
\notherwise by the superior Court or authority when it has the occasion to refer
\nto it and consider whether such an order is proper or regular.  This  view  is
\naccepted  by  the  Supreme  Court  in  one  of  its  latest  pronouncements in
\nTravancore Rayons v.  Union of India, A.I.R.<\/a>  1971  S.C.    862,  The  Supreme
\nCourt said:\n<\/p>\n
        “When  judicial power is exercised by an authority normally performing
\nexecutive  or  administrative  functions,  the  Supreme  Court  insists   upon
\ndisclosure  of  reasons  in support of the order on two grounds; one, that the
\nparty aggrieved in a proceeding before the High Court or the Supreme Court has
\nthe opportunity to demonstrate that the reasons which persuaded the  authority
\nto  reject  his  case were erroneous; the other, that the obligation to record
\nreasons operates as a deterrent against possible arbitrary action by the  exec
\nutive authority invested with the judicial power”.\n<\/p>\n
On  the ground that the 1st respondent failed to give any satisfactory reasons
\nand indeed no reason  at  all  to  justify  the  challenged  order,  the  writ
\npetitions should succeed.”\n<\/p>\n
        17.   In  the  above  decision  this  court  held  that quasi-judicial
\ntribunals should give demonstrable reasons so that when it is  scrutinised  by
\nany one in the higher hierarchy he should be in a position to appreciate as to
\nwhat was the real reason behind the order impugned or passed.\n<\/p>\n
        18.   I  do  not  think  that the authorities below failed to give any
\ndemonstrable reasons so that this court was not in a position to appreciate as
\nto what was the real reason behind the order of eviction.\n<\/p>\n
        19.  In (2000) 1 SCC 451 cited supra, the Hon’ble Supreme  Court  held
\nthat  only  when  the  Rent  Controller  is satisfied that tenant’s default is
\nwilful he can order eviction and whether the default is wilful is  a  question
\nof mixed  facts and law.  In the very same judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court
\nheld  that  where  findings  recorded  by  Appellate  Authority  are  illegal,
\nerroneous  or perverse, High court under Sec.25 of the Act 18\/1960 may reverse
\nthe findings and record its own findings.\n<\/p>\n
        20.  In the case on hand, the default of the tenant is  unquestionably
\nwilful  default  and  both  the authorities have come to a correct finding and
\ntherefore there is no necessity to interfere with those findings.\n<\/p>\n
        21.  In 2000-1-L.W.  853 cited supra this court held as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
“12.  In the light of the above pronouncements, this Court has to consider the
\nmerits of the Second Appeal.  Though the findings of the two Courts below  are
\nconcurrent,  this  Court is unable to sustain the judgment of the Courts below
\nas they have miserably failed to consider  the  material  documents  and  oral
\nevidence.   The  omission  to  consider  the  material  documents and material
\nportion of the evidence by  the  two  Courts  below  is  a  valid  ground  for
\ninterference  in the Second Appeal, even if it is against concurrent findings.
\nMerely because, the findings are concurrent, this Court is not  helpless  when
\nit is demonstrated that the two Courts below have failed to advert or consider
\nthe  material  portion  of  the  evidence or their appreciation of evidence is
\nperverse or the findings recorded by the two  Courts  below  are  demonstrably
\nincorrect  on  the  face  of  the documentary evidence produced before the two
\nCourts below.  This Court is considering this appeal being  conscious  of  the
\npronouncement  of  the  Apex  Court as to the Court’s power under Section 100,
\nC.P.C.”\n<\/p>\n
        22.  In the above case this court has held that when the courts  below
\nmiserably failed to consider the material documents and oral evidence or their
\nappreciation  of  evidence is perverse, this court can interfere under Sec.100
\nof C.P.C.  The facts of the above case are different and they do  not  support
\nthe case of the revision petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
        23.  In  (2000)  II  M.L.J.    202  cited  supra,  this  Court held as
\nfollows:-\n<\/p>\n
“12.  In view of the law declared by the Honourable Supreme Court, it  has  to
\nbe  held that landlady has no cause of action to file application for eviction
\non the ground that tenant has committed default in paying  rent.    As  stated
\nearlier,  landlady  has taken advance of 60 months rent, though law permits to
\ntake advance of only one month rent.  Excess advance is liable to be  adjusted
\nin  the rent payable by tenant as and when becomes due even without any demand
\nfrom tenant.  If that be so, landlord cannot expect payment of  rent  for  the
\nalleged period  of  default.    If  landlord  cannot  demand any rent for that
\nperiod, notice issued by her intimating default also will be invalid and of no
\nlegal consequence.  On the date when notice was issued, no rent  was  due  nor
\npayable by  tenant.  If notice issued is invalid merely because tenant did not
\npay rent within a period of two months, he also cannot be deemed as defaulter.
\nAppellate authority has not taken into consideration the above legal  position
\nwhile confirming the order of eviction.”\n<\/p>\n
        24.   I  am  in entire agreement with the above decision, according to
\nwhich excess advance is liable to be adjusted  in  the  rent  payable  by  the
\ntenant as  and  when  it  becomes due even without payment from the tenant.  I
\nhave also already held that even after the adjustment of  the  excess  advance
\namount,  still  the  revision petitioner is in arrears of rent which is wilful
\nand wanton warranting an order of eviction.\n<\/p>\n
        25.  In the light of the above, the revision petition challenging  the
\norder  of  the  appellate  authority ordering eviction on the ground of wilful
\ndefault fails and the order of eviction on the ground of wilful default has to
\nbe upheld and accordingly upheld.\n<\/p>\n
        26.  Insofar as the  eviction  confirmed  on  the  ground  of  owner’s
\noccupation  is  concerned,  the learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously
\ncontended that the respondent\/landlord has miserably failed to prove his  case
\nand  both the authorities below have mechanically upheld the contention of the
\nlandlord that he is in bona fide need of the petition premises for his own use
\nand occupation.\n<\/p>\n
        27.  The Appellate Authority in the order dated 19.10.2005  held  that
\nthe   tenant   was  not  able  to  prove  by  letting  in  evidence  that  the
\nrespondent\/landlord owns some other building other than the petition  premises
\nand upheld the order of eviction on this ground also.  The Appellate Authority
\nhas  not  considered  the fact that excepting making averments in the petition
\nand giving oral evidence that the respondent\/ landlord is not owning any other
\nproperty, the respondent\/landlord has not let in any other evidence  to  prove
\nthat  he  is  in  real  need  of  the  petition  premises  for his own use and
\noccupation.\n<\/p>\n
        28.  In 1974 T.L.N.N.J.  245 cited supra this court held as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
“The tenant is the petitioner.  The courts below have not given  any  definite
\nfinding as required  U\/s.  10(3)(c); In cases arising U\/s.  10(3 )(c), certain
\nstated considerations arise besides the normal features which usually come  up
\nfor  decision  in  courts  in  the  matter  of  the acceptance or rejection of
\napplication for eviction filed by landlords for additional accommodation.   In
\nthis case,  the  court  is  concerned  with  an application U\/s.10(3)(c).  The
\ncommon features which are to be taken notice of  by  the  Controller  and  the
\nappellate  authority,  while  dealing  with  such  applications  are  that the
\nController or the appellate authority as the case  may  be,  is  so  satisfied
\nshall  make an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of
\nthe part of the building for the  possession  of  which  the  application  for
\nadditional  accommodation  has  been  filed,  and  if  not  so  satisfied  the
\napplication has to be rejected.  The above special feature in  an  application
\nU\/s.10(3)(c) is  subject to the proviso to S.10(3)(c) of the Act.  The crucial
\naspect therefore, could be charaterised  as  a  special  incident  in  matters
\narising U\/s.    10(3)(c)  is that there should be a categorical finding by the
\nstatutory authority that the hardship which may be caused  to  the  tenant  by
\ngranting it  will  outweigh  the  advantage  to  the  landlord.   This special
\nprescription is not to be considered as otiose or an an  irrelevant  appendage
\nin the  statute.   It has been specially provided for so as to avoid necessary
\nhardship to the tenant, as in the case under  consideration  the  landlord  is
\nonly  seeking  additional  accommodation  in  the  same  premises, whether for
\nresidential or non residential purposes.  Therefore, it becomes imperative for
\nthe authorities in cases arising  U\/s.10(3)(c)  to  give  a  specific  finding
\nwhether  the  hardship  which the tenant is likely to suffer will outweigh the
\nadvantage to the landlord or vice versa.  Unless this aspect  is  noticed  and
\nadjudged upon by the statutory authorities there is no complete enquiry on the
\nstatute contemplated  in regard to the petition arising U\/s.10(3)(c).  Such an
\nenquiry has not been undertaken in this case.  Therefore, there has not been a
\nproper disposal of the application U\/s.10(3)(c).”\n<\/p>\n
        29.   In  this  decision  this  court  considered  the  provisions  of
\nSec.10(3)(c)of  the  Act and held that it is imperative for the authorities in
\ncases arising under Sec.10(3)(c)  to  give  a  specific  finding  whether  the
\nhardship  which the tenant is likely to suffer would outweigh the advantage to
\nthe landlord or vice versa.\n<\/p>\n
        30.  This decision is not applicable  to  the  case  on  hand  as  the
\neviction petition has not been filed under Sec.10(3)(c) of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
        31.  In 1978-I-M.L.J.  79 cited supra this court held as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
“Sec.10(3) (a) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960,
\nprovides  for  eviction  of  tenants  in cases where the landlord requires the
\nbuilding for his own occupation.   Sub-clauses  (i)  to  (iii)  lay  down  the
\nparticular  circumstances  under  which a landlord can ask for eviction of the
\ntenant.  Sub-clause (i) deals  with  residential  buildings;  sub-clause  (ii)
\ndeals  with  non-residential  buildings which are meant, or actually used, for
\nstationing  vehicles;  sub-clause  (iii)  deals  with  other   non-residential
\nbuildings.   It  may be that the language of sub-clause (iii) as compared with
\nsub-clauses (i) and ( ii) is susceptible of a narrow, literal, interpretation,
\nbut it is the common acceptation of lawyers and Courts  that  this  provision,
\nlike the other two following provisions in the same sub-section, lays down two
\nindispensable conditions  for  an  eviction petition.  The landlord must be in
\nneed of the premises under the tenant’s occupation for the purpose of his  own
\nbusiness or  that  of a member of his family.  The landlord must have no other
\nnon-residential building of his own  elsewhere  in  the  same  city,  town  or
\nvillage concerned.”\n<\/p>\n
        32.   This  court  in  the  above judgment lays down two indispensable
\nconditions for eviction where the landlord requires his building for  his  own
\noccupation.  One of the conditions is that the landlord must be in need of the
\npremises  under  the tenant’s occupation for the purpose of his own occupation
\nor that of a member of his family.  The Rent Control Appellate  Authority  has
\nfailed  to  examine  whether the respondent\/landlord satisfied the two initial
\nrequirements and simply proceeded to upheld the order of the Rent  Controller.
\nThe  Rent  Controller  also  has not considered these aspects and mechanically
\nallowed the eviction petition on the ground of owner’s occupation.\n<\/p>\n
        33.  In (2005) 4 M.L.J.  127, this court held as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
“20.  Excepting the above averments, no other averments  are  available,  such
\nas,  what  is  the  name  of  the business, in which building that business is
\ncarried on, who is the owner of that building, what is the rent payable,  etc.
\nThe  landlords  cannot escape very easily contending that the pleadings in the
\nrent control application should not  be  construed  so  strictly,  and  it  is
\nsufficient, if  some allegations are available for personal occupation.  It is
\nincumbent upon the landlord to plead the minimum requirements, to satisfy  the
\ningredients available  under  Sec.10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act.  Sec.10(3)(a)(iii)
\nof the Act says, ‘the landlord or the member of the family, if the building is
\nrequired for the member, must be carrying on business on the date of filing of
\nthe application, that he or the member  of  the  family  should  not  own  any
\nnon-residential  building for the purpose of carrying on the said business and
\nthat the requirement must be bona fide, not aiming  at  evicting  the  tenant.
\nTherefore,  the  landlord must say, whether the member of the family, since in
\nthis case the building is sought for the members of the family, is owning  any
\nproperty,  of his own, as nonresidential building, for the purpose of carrying
\non business, which is absent here.  What is the name of the business,  who  is
\nthe owner of the business is also not specifically pleaded.  In the absence of
\nany proof, by producing some documents at a later stage, the landlords want to
\nmake out a case, as if the members of the family are carrying on the business.
\nIf  pleadings  are available, then only, comparing the same with the evidence,
\nwhether the evidence fits-in with the  pleadings,  the  requirement  could  be
\nascertained,  in  order to have the satisfaction by the Rent Controller or the
\nappellate Authority, as the case may be, checking the bona fide.”\n<\/p>\n
        34.  I am in respectful agreement with the  above  judgment  and  this
\ndecision will   definitely  apply  to  the  facts  before  this  court.    The
\nrespondent\/landlord has not  at  all  satisfied  the  minimum  requirement  to
\nattract the ingredients available under Sec.10(3)(a)(i) of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
        35.   In  view of the above discussion, I am inclined to hold that the
\neviction order passed by the  authorities  below  on  the  ground  of  owner’s
\noccupation  is  not  proper  and the same is therefore liable to be set aside.
\nAccordingly, the same is set aside.\n<\/p>\n
        36.  In the result, the revision petition is partly  allowed,  setting
\naside  the  order  passed  by  the  authorities below on the ground of owner’s
\noccupation and dismissing the  revision  petition  on  the  ground  of  wilful
\ndefault  and the revision petitioner is liable to be evicted from the petition
\npremises on the only ground of wilful default committed by  him.    No  costs.
\nC.M.P.No.3447\/2006 is closed.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                16.6.2006<\/p>\n
C.R.P.NPD.No.460 of 2006  <\/p>\n
S.RAJESWARAN, J.\n<\/p>\n
        After  pronouncement  of  the order today, the learned counsel for the
\ntenant\/petitioner seeks time for the tenant to vacate the  premises  and  hand
\nover vacant  possession.    Accordingly,  six  months’  time is granted to the
\ntenant\/petitioner from today to vacate and hand over the vacant possession  of
\nthe  premises  in  question  to the respondent\/ landlord on condition that the
\ntenant\/petitioner files an affidavit of undertaking to this  effect  within  a
\nperiod  of  seven  days  from  today,  after serving a copy of the same to the
\nlearned counsel for the respondent\/landlord.\n<\/p>\n
        Post the matter on 29.06.2006.\n<\/p>\n
16.06.2006.\n<\/p>\n
cla<\/p>\n
To\n<\/p>\n
1.The Appellate Authority (Sub-Judge) Poonamallee.\n<\/p>\n
2.  The Rent Controller (District Munsif), Ambattur.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court Dr.R.Arulmozhi vs M.Sadasivam on 16 June, 2006 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated: 16\/06\/2006 Coram The Hon’ble Mr.JUSTICE S.RAJESWARAN C.R.P.(NPD) No.460 of 2006 Dr.R.Arulmozhi .. Petitioner -Vs- M.Sadasivam .. Respondent Revision Petition filed against the judgment dated 19.10.2005, in R.C.A.No.1\/2005 on the file of the Appellate Authority (Sub-Court) Poonamallee […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-89794","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nDr.R.Arulmozhi vs M.Sadasivam on 16 June, 2006 - 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\/dr-r-arulmozhi-vs-m-sadasivam-on-16-june-2006-2\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Dr.R.Arulmozhi vs M.Sadasivam on 16 June, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-r-arulmozhi-vs-m-sadasivam-on-16-june-2006-2\" \/>\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=\"2006-06-15T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-10-23T08:10:52+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=\"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\\\/dr-r-arulmozhi-vs-m-sadasivam-on-16-june-2006-2#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-r-arulmozhi-vs-m-sadasivam-on-16-june-2006-2\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Dr.R.Arulmozhi vs M.Sadasivam on 16 June, 2006\",\"datePublished\":\"2006-06-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-10-23T08:10:52+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-r-arulmozhi-vs-m-sadasivam-on-16-june-2006-2\"},\"wordCount\":4407,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madras High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-r-arulmozhi-vs-m-sadasivam-on-16-june-2006-2#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-r-arulmozhi-vs-m-sadasivam-on-16-june-2006-2\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-r-arulmozhi-vs-m-sadasivam-on-16-june-2006-2\",\"name\":\"Dr.R.Arulmozhi vs M.Sadasivam on 16 June, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2006-06-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-10-23T08:10:52+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-r-arulmozhi-vs-m-sadasivam-on-16-june-2006-2#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-r-arulmozhi-vs-m-sadasivam-on-16-june-2006-2\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-r-arulmozhi-vs-m-sadasivam-on-16-june-2006-2#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Dr.R.Arulmozhi vs M.Sadasivam on 16 June, 2006\"}]},{\"@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":"Dr.R.Arulmozhi vs M.Sadasivam on 16 June, 2006 - 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\/dr-r-arulmozhi-vs-m-sadasivam-on-16-june-2006-2","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Dr.R.Arulmozhi vs M.Sadasivam on 16 June, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-r-arulmozhi-vs-m-sadasivam-on-16-june-2006-2","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2006-06-15T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-10-23T08:10:52+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":"22 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-r-arulmozhi-vs-m-sadasivam-on-16-june-2006-2#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-r-arulmozhi-vs-m-sadasivam-on-16-june-2006-2"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Dr.R.Arulmozhi vs M.Sadasivam on 16 June, 2006","datePublished":"2006-06-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-10-23T08:10:52+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-r-arulmozhi-vs-m-sadasivam-on-16-june-2006-2"},"wordCount":4407,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madras High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-r-arulmozhi-vs-m-sadasivam-on-16-june-2006-2#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-r-arulmozhi-vs-m-sadasivam-on-16-june-2006-2","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-r-arulmozhi-vs-m-sadasivam-on-16-june-2006-2","name":"Dr.R.Arulmozhi vs M.Sadasivam on 16 June, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2006-06-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-10-23T08:10:52+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-r-arulmozhi-vs-m-sadasivam-on-16-june-2006-2#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-r-arulmozhi-vs-m-sadasivam-on-16-june-2006-2"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-r-arulmozhi-vs-m-sadasivam-on-16-june-2006-2#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Dr.R.Arulmozhi vs M.Sadasivam on 16 June, 2006"}]},{"@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\/89794","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=89794"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/89794\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=89794"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=89794"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=89794"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}