{"id":96187,"date":"2007-03-28T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-03-27T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rishi-kumar-govil-vs-maqsoodan-and-ors-on-28-march-2007-2"},"modified":"2018-09-04T20:55:28","modified_gmt":"2018-09-04T15:25:28","slug":"rishi-kumar-govil-vs-maqsoodan-and-ors-on-28-march-2007-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rishi-kumar-govil-vs-maqsoodan-and-ors-on-28-march-2007-2","title":{"rendered":"Rishi Kumar Govil vs Maqsoodan And Ors on 28 March, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Rishi Kumar Govil vs Maqsoodan And Ors on 28 March, 2007<\/div>\n
Author: D A Pasayat<\/div>\n
Bench: Dr. Arijit Pasayat, Lokeshwar Singh Panta<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil)  1601 of 2007\n\nPETITIONER:\nRishi Kumar Govil\n\nRESPONDENT:\nMaqsoodan and Ors.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 28\/03\/2007\n\nBENCH:\nDR. ARIJIT PASAYAT & LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
JUDGMENT<\/p>\n
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.\n<\/p>\n
Leave granted.\n<\/p>\n
Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by the learned Single Judge
\nof the Allahabad High Court dismissing the Writ Petition filed by the
\nappellant. Challenge in the writ petition was to the order passed by the
\nPrescribed Authority as affirmed by the Appellate Authority allowing the
\nrelease application of the respondent No.1-landlady.\n<\/p>\n
Sans unnecessary details factual position is as follows:\n<\/p>\n
Late Ram Govil was tenant of a shop situated at Ansari Road, Bulandshahr
\nsince 1941. Smt. Maqsoodan purchased the aforesaid shop on 11.12.1979 from
\nSri Ganesh Datt, the erstwhile landlord. She moved release application
\nNo.R.C. 31 of 1984 under Section 21(1)(a) of the Uttar Pradesh Urban
\nBuildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (in short
\nthe ‘Act’) for the need of her son-Shamshad Ahmad. In the release
\napplication, the respondent No.1-landlady prayed that the shop was urgently
\nrequired as her husband intended to start business of repairing fire arms
\nfrom the disputed shop for her son- Shamshad Ahmed.\n<\/p>\n
The release application was contested by the appellant – tenant by filing
\nwritten statement and denying the stand.  She took the stand that the claim
\nwas not bona fide and genuine and the release application has been moved
\nwith the mal-intention of harassing him. It was also alleged that the
\nlandlady was in possession of two other shops, having basement as well
\nsituated at Ansari Road, Near Chowk Bazar which were in the use and
\noccupation of Sri Imtiaz Ahmad, husband of the landlady. The appellant
\nfurther alleged that the purpose of getting release of disputed shop was
\nneed for starting business of repair of fire arms whereas the same business
\nis being run by the husband of the landlady from the aforesaid two shops.
\nThe case of the landlady was that the disputed shop was not suitable for
\nthe purpose of carrying on business of repair of fire arms and that earlier
\nthe licence of the shop-M\/s B.A. Shastra Bhandar was in the name of one
\nShamshuddin, sister’s son of the husband of the landlady, on whose death,
\nSri Shamshad Ahmad, for whose need the release application had been moved,
\nwas carrying on the business of repair of fire arms with his father, i.e.,
\nhusband of the landlady from the aforesaid two shops.\n<\/p>\n
The appellant claimed that he being a medical practitioner, he has his
\nchamber in the disputed shop wherefrom his son Kumar Govil was carrying on
\nthe business as optician and that the situation of the disputed shop was
\nperfect for his above business as there was no other shop of opticians in
\nthe vicinity.\n<\/p>\n
In support of his case, the appellant filed his own affidavit stating
\ntherein that son of the landlady was carrying on the business of repair of
\nfire arms with his father i.e. husband of the landlady in two shops along
\nwith first basement in Chowk Bazar near Ansari Road, Bulandshahr. He
\nalleged that the family of the landlady was very rich as her husband was in
\npossession of a big shopping complex at Kala Aam Ka Churaha, Bulandshahr
\nnear D.M. Colony Road. That apart, the husband of the landlady had
\nconstructed large motor Workshop having plinth area of 1717 sq. yards.\n<\/p>\n
The son of the tenant – Sri Rishi Kumar Govil also filed his affidavit
\nstating therein that his father was a medical practitioner and he was
\ncarrying on the business as optician from the disputed shop. In another
\naffidavit, the appellant stated that he was running the disputed shop and
\nthat he had no other source of livelihood and in case he was evicted from
\nthe shop, he would have to suffer greater hardship than the landlady. The
\nappellant also filed an affidavit of one Sri Narendra Kumar Upadhyay in his
\nsupport who stated that the tenant was in medical profession and running
\nhis business whereas from the disputed shop his son was carrying on the
\nbusiness as optician.\n<\/p>\n
The prescribed authority vide judgment and order dated 08.05.1986 allowed
\nthe release application of the landlady and directed for eviction of the
\ntenant – appellant.  However, in appeal, the order was upset.\n<\/p>\n
Against the order in appeal, aforesaid, the landlady preferred Civil Misc.
\nWrit No. 9858 of 1998 before the Allahabad High Court, which was disposed
\nof vide judgment and order dated 13.10.1998 and the matter was remanded to
\nthe appellate court with the observation that the appellate court shall
\ndecide the appeal afresh on merits after taking into consideration the
\nmaterial subsequent events.\n<\/p>\n
During the pendency of the appeal, the appellant-tenant died and was
\nsubstituted by the legal heirs.\n<\/p>\n
On remand, the appellate authority reheard the appeal and decided the same
\nvide judgment and order dated 21.04.2001 holding that the landlady herself
\nhad offered an alternate shop to the tenant but the appellant  refused to
\ntake possession of the alternative shop offered by her with a view to
\nremain in possession over the disputed shop. Accordingly, he dismissed the
\nappeal and affirmed the judgment and decree passed by the prescribed
\nauthority declaring vacancy.\n<\/p>\n
Aggrieved by the above-mentioned orders of the prescribed Authority and the
\nAppellate Court, the appellant filed a writ petition.\n<\/p>\n
The High Court concluded that the conclusions of the Prescribed Authority
\nand affirmed by the Appellate Authority did not suffer from any infirmity
\nto warrant interference.\n<\/p>\n
In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that
\nthe relevant factors as detailed in Rule 16 of the Rules have not been kept
\nin view. The Prescribed Authority, the Appellate Authority and the High
\nCourt failed to consider the fact that even partial eviction would suffice.
\nIt is submitted that in terms of Rule 16 so far as the commercial premises
\nare concerned the parameters have to be different.\n<\/p>\n
Learned counsel for the respondent no.1 supported the judgment of the High
\nCourt.\n<\/p>\n
It is stated by learned counsel for the respondents the premises in respect
\nof repair of guns have to be the separate premises. The appellant has 13
\nshops available and in this context it is submitted that the tenant-
\nappellant had got vacated a shop out of 13 shops situated at Khurja Bus
\nstand from one Sri Om Prakash in a rent control case. The tenant is also
\ncarrying on business in one of these 13 shops in the name and style of
\nGovil Optician. Therefore, the need of the landlady is more hard pressing
\nin comparison to the appellant-tenant. By way of reply, learned counsel for
\nthe appellant submitted that it is not a fact that there are 13 shops
\navailable, the number is much less.\n<\/p>\n
  Rule 16 on which reliance has been placed by both the sides reads as
\n  follows:\n<\/p>\n
\t“16. Application for release on the ground of personal requirement:
\n\tIn considering the requirements of personal occupation for purposes
\n\tof residence by the landlord or any member of his family, the
\n\tprescribed authority shall, also have regard to such factors as the
\n\tfollowing-\n<\/p>\n
(a)\twhere the landlord already has adequate and reasonably suitable
\naccommodation having regard to the number of members of his family and
\ntheir respective ages and  his means and social status, his claim for
\nadditional requirements shall be construed strictly;\n<\/p>\n
(b)\twhere a residential building was let out at a time when the sons of
\nthe landlord were minors and subsequently one or more of them has married,
\nthe additional requirement of accommodation for the landlord’s sons shall
\nbe given due consideration;\n<\/p>\n
(c)\twhere the tenant has, apart from the building under tenancy other
\nadequate accommodation, whether owned by him or held as tenant of any
\npublic premises, having regard to the number of members of his family and
\ntheir respective ages and his social status, the landlord’s claim for
\nadditional requirements shall be construed liberally;\n<\/p>\n
(d)\twhere the tenant’s needs would be adequately met by leaving with
\nhim a part of the building under tenancy and the landlord’s needs would be
\nserved by releasing the other part, the prescribed authority shall release
\nonly the latter part of the building;\n<\/p>\n
(e)\twhere there are a number of tenants separately occupying a block of
\ntenements and the landlord desires their eviction on ground of his personal
\nneed the prescribed authority shall, consider whether suitable alternative
\naccommodation is likely to be available to such tenants;\n<\/p>\n
(f)\twhere the landlord offers to the tenant alternative accommodation
\nreasonably suitable to the needs of the tenant and his family the
\nlandlord’s claim for release of the building under tenancy shall be
\nconstrued liberally;\n<\/p>\n
(g)\twhere the landlord was engaged in any employment in the same city,
\nmunicipality, notified area or town area in which the building is situate
\nand was in occupation of other accommodation by reason of such employment
\nor where the landlord is the wife or minor son or unmarried daughter of a
\nperson who was engaged in any profession, trade,  calling or employment
\naway from the city, municipality, notified area or town area within which
\nthe building is situate and was living with such person, and by reason of
\nthe cessation of such engagement, the landlord needs the building for
\noccupation by himself for residential purposes, such need shall ordinarily
\nbe deemed sufficient.\n<\/p>\n
(2) While considering an application for release under (a) of sub-section
\n(1) of Section 21 in respect of a building let out for purposes of any
\nbusiness, the prescribed authority shall also have regard to such facts as
\nthe following:\n<\/p>\n
(a) the greater the period since when the tenant opposite party, or the
\noriginal tenant whose heir the opposite party is, has been carrying on his
\nbusiness in that building, the less the justification for allowing the
\napplication;\n<\/p>\n
(b) where the tenant has available with him suitable accommodation to which
\nhe can shift his business without substantial loss there shall be greater
\njustification for allowing the application;\n<\/p>\n
(c) the greater the existing business of the landlord’s own, apart from the
\nbusiness proposed to be set up in the leased premises, the less the
\njustification for allowing the application, and even if an application is
\nallowed in such a case, the prescribed authority may on the application of
\nthe tenant impose the condition where the landlord has available with him
\nother accommodation (whether subject to the Act or not) which is not
\nsuitable for his own proposed business but may serve the purpose of the
\ntenant, that the landlord shall let out that accommodation to the tenant on
\na fair rent to be fixed by the prescribed authority;\n<\/p>\n
(d)  where a son or unmarried or widowed or divorced or judicially
\nseparated daughter or daughter of a male lineal descendant of the landlord
\nhas, after the building was originally let out, completed his or her
\ntechnical education and is not employed in Government service, and wants to
\nengage in self-employment, his or  her need shall be given due
\nconsideration.\n<\/p>\n
(3) Where the tenant being servant of Government or of any local authority
\nor any public sector corporation does not contest the application, then a
\nreasonable opportunity of being heard shall be given to the District
\nMagistrate, who shall  have the right to oppose the application.”\n<\/p>\n
The parameters relating to Rule 16 of the Rules have been dealt with by
\nthis Court in Sushila v. IInd Addl. District Judge, Banda and Ors.,<\/a> [2003]
\n2 SC 28. In the said judgment it was inter-alia noted as follows:\n<\/p>\n
“10. A bare perusal of Rule 16 of the U.P. Urban Building (Regulation of
\nLetting, Rent and Eviction) Rules, 1972 makes it clear that the Rule only
\nprescribes certain factors which have also to be taken into account while
\nconsidering the application for eviction of a tenant on the ground of bona
\nfide need. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 16 quoted earlier relates to the cases of
\neviction from an accommodation for business use. Clause (a) of sub-rule (2)
\nprovides, greater the period of tenancy less the justification for allowing
\nthe application; whereas according to clause (b) in case the tenant has a
\nsuitable accommodation available to him to shift his business, greater the
\njustification to allow the application. Availability of another suitable
\naccommodation to the tenant, waters down the weight attached to the longer
\nperiod of tenancy as a factor to be considered as provided under clause (a)
\nof sub-rule (2) of Rule 16. Yet another factor which may in some cases be
\nrelevant under clause (c) is where the existing business of the landlord is
\nquite huge and extensive leaving aside the proposed business to be set up,
\nthere would be lesser justification to allow the application. The idea
\nbehind Sub-clause (c) is apparent i.e. where the landlord runs a huge
\nbusiness eviction may not be resorted to for expansion or diversification
\nof the business by uprooting a tenant having a small business for a very
\nlong period of time. In such a situation if eviction is ordered it is
\ndefinitely bound to cause greater hardship to the tenant.\n<\/p>\n
11. In the case in hand we find that even though the period of tenancy of
\nthe respondent is no doubt long but availability of another shop to him
\nwhere he can very well shift his business as found by the Prescribed
\nAuthority, neutralises the factor of length of tenancy in the accommodation
\nin dispute. We further find that the landlady has no other shop where she
\ncan establish her son who is married and unemployed. There is nothing on
\nthe record to indicate that the business of father of Prem Prakash is so
\nhuge or that it is a very flourishing business so as to attract application
\nof Clause (c) of Rule 16(2). As observed earlier it is clear that length of
\nperiod of tenancy as provided under Clause (a) of Sub-rule 2 of Rule 16 of
\nthe Rules, 1972 is only one of the factors to be taken into account in
\ncontext with other facts and circumstance of the case. It cannot be a sole
\ncriterion or deciding factor to order or not the eviction of the tenant.
\nConsidering the facts in the light of Rule 16 pressed into service on
\nbehalf of the respondent, we find that according to the guidelines provided
\ntherein balance tilts in favour of the unemployed son of the landlady whose
\nneed is certainly bonafide and has also been so accepted by the respondent
\nbefore us.”\n<\/p>\n
In Ragavendra Kumar v. Firm Prem Machinary and Co., AIR<\/a> (2000) SC 534 it
\nwas held that it is the choice of the landlord  to choose the place for the
\nbusiness which is most suitable for him.  He has complete  freedom in the
\nmatter.  In Gaya Prasad v. Pradeep Shrivastava, AIR<\/a> (2001) SC 803 it was
\nheld that the need of the landlord is to be seen on the date of application
\nfor release. In Prativa Devi (Smt.) v. T.V. Krishnan, [1996] 5 SCC 353 it
\nwas held  that the landlord is the best Judge of his requirement and Courts
\nhave no concern to dictate the landlord as to how and in what manner he
\nshould live.  The bona fide personal need is a question of fact and should
\nnot be normally interfered with. The High Court noted that when the
\nPrescribed Authority passed the order son of the respondent-landlady was 20
\nyears old and the shop was sought to be released for the purpose of
\nsettling him in business. More than 20 years have elapsed and the son has
\nbecome more than 40 years of age and she has not been able to establish him
\nas she has still to get the possession of the shop and the litigation of
\nthe dispute is still subsisting. The licence for repairing fire arms can
\nonly be obtained when there is a vacant shop available and in the absence
\nof any vacant shop, licence cannot be obtained by him. Therefore, the High
\nCourt came to the conclusion concurring with that of the Prescribed
\nAuthority and Appellate Authority that the need of the landlady is bona
\nfide and genuine. Considering the factual findings recorded by the
\nPrescribed Authority, Appellate Authority and analysed by the High Court,
\nthere is no scope for any interference in this appeal which is accordingly
\ndismissed. However, considering the period for  which the premises in
\nquestion are in the occupation of the appellant time is granted till 31st
\nDecember, 2007 to vacate the premises subject to filing of an undertaking
\nbefore the Prescribed Authority within a period of 2 weeks to deliver the
\nvacant possession on or before the stipulated date.  There will be no order
\nas to costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Rishi Kumar Govil vs Maqsoodan And Ors on 28 March, 2007 Author: D A Pasayat Bench: Dr. Arijit Pasayat, Lokeshwar Singh Panta CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 1601 of 2007 PETITIONER: Rishi Kumar Govil RESPONDENT: Maqsoodan and Ors. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 28\/03\/2007 BENCH: DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT & LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT […]<\/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-96187","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nRishi Kumar Govil vs Maqsoodan And Ors on 28 March, 2007 - 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\/rishi-kumar-govil-vs-maqsoodan-and-ors-on-28-march-2007-2\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Rishi Kumar Govil vs Maqsoodan And Ors on 28 March, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rishi-kumar-govil-vs-maqsoodan-and-ors-on-28-march-2007-2\" \/>\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=\"2007-03-27T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-09-04T15:25:28+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=\"14 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rishi-kumar-govil-vs-maqsoodan-and-ors-on-28-march-2007-2#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rishi-kumar-govil-vs-maqsoodan-and-ors-on-28-march-2007-2\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Rishi Kumar Govil vs Maqsoodan And Ors on 28 March, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-03-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-09-04T15:25:28+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rishi-kumar-govil-vs-maqsoodan-and-ors-on-28-march-2007-2\"},\"wordCount\":2754,\"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\\\/rishi-kumar-govil-vs-maqsoodan-and-ors-on-28-march-2007-2#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rishi-kumar-govil-vs-maqsoodan-and-ors-on-28-march-2007-2\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rishi-kumar-govil-vs-maqsoodan-and-ors-on-28-march-2007-2\",\"name\":\"Rishi Kumar Govil vs Maqsoodan And Ors on 28 March, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-03-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-09-04T15:25:28+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rishi-kumar-govil-vs-maqsoodan-and-ors-on-28-march-2007-2#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rishi-kumar-govil-vs-maqsoodan-and-ors-on-28-march-2007-2\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rishi-kumar-govil-vs-maqsoodan-and-ors-on-28-march-2007-2#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Rishi Kumar Govil vs Maqsoodan And Ors on 28 March, 2007\"}]},{\"@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":"Rishi Kumar Govil vs Maqsoodan And Ors on 28 March, 2007 - 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\/rishi-kumar-govil-vs-maqsoodan-and-ors-on-28-march-2007-2","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Rishi Kumar Govil vs Maqsoodan And Ors on 28 March, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rishi-kumar-govil-vs-maqsoodan-and-ors-on-28-march-2007-2","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-03-27T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-09-04T15:25:28+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":"14 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rishi-kumar-govil-vs-maqsoodan-and-ors-on-28-march-2007-2#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rishi-kumar-govil-vs-maqsoodan-and-ors-on-28-march-2007-2"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Rishi Kumar Govil vs Maqsoodan And Ors on 28 March, 2007","datePublished":"2007-03-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-09-04T15:25:28+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rishi-kumar-govil-vs-maqsoodan-and-ors-on-28-march-2007-2"},"wordCount":2754,"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\/rishi-kumar-govil-vs-maqsoodan-and-ors-on-28-march-2007-2#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rishi-kumar-govil-vs-maqsoodan-and-ors-on-28-march-2007-2","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rishi-kumar-govil-vs-maqsoodan-and-ors-on-28-march-2007-2","name":"Rishi Kumar Govil vs Maqsoodan And Ors on 28 March, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-03-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-09-04T15:25:28+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rishi-kumar-govil-vs-maqsoodan-and-ors-on-28-march-2007-2#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rishi-kumar-govil-vs-maqsoodan-and-ors-on-28-march-2007-2"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rishi-kumar-govil-vs-maqsoodan-and-ors-on-28-march-2007-2#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Rishi Kumar Govil vs Maqsoodan And Ors on 28 March, 2007"}]},{"@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\/96187","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=96187"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/96187\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=96187"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=96187"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=96187"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}