DAVIS versus SEBASTIAN

Citation: [1999] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 612 · Decided: 19-08-1999 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V.N. KHARE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
DAVIS 
v. 
SEBASTIAN 
AUGUST 19, 1999 
B 
[V.N. KHARE AND SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI, JJ.] 
Rent Control & Eviction: 
Kera/a Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965: 
c 
Sub-sections (3), (8), (JO) of Section I /-Comparative hardship-
Petition for eviction of tenant from part of the premises on the ground of 
personal bona fide requirement for doing additional business-Tenant 
contested on the ground that the running of business in the tenanted premises 
was his only source of income and that landlord had additional place for 
D doing additional business-Rent Controller and Appellate Authority dismissed 
the petition holding that landlord was not in need of premises and that 
tenant would be put to greater hardship-In revision High Court did not 
give a finding on comparative hardship-Held, eviction ·petition may be 
rejected where tenant would suffer greater hardship as a result of eviction 
E than the benefit that would be gained by landlord-Court must give finding 
on the question of comparative hardship-As High Court did not consider 
the question of comparative hardship matter remitted to the High Court for 
fresh consideration and disposal. 
Section 11 (8)-Requirement of "personal use "-Expression ""personal 
F use", held, was of wide import and nothing in the sub-section restricted it-
Requirement of sub-section (8) would be complied with on satisfaction about 
bona fide need of additional accommodation for personal use of ihe landlord-
Use to which such additional accommodation is to be put would depend 
upon the landlord-In case of non-residential premises, use could be either 
for new business or for expansion of existing business. -
G 
Section I I (3) and I I (8)-Held, re.quirements of Section I I (3) and 
I I (8) are different_ and there is no scope for a case falling under Section 
I I (3) to have recourse to Section I I (8) and thereby diluting Section I I (3)-
Therefore, it cannot be said that if expression "personal_ use" in sub-section 
H (8) is to be interpreted to include "use for any business", it will dilute the 
f 
612 
DA VIS v. SEBASTIAN 
613 
rigour of sub-section (3). 
Words and Phrases "Personal use" and "additional accommodation"-
Meaning of. 
A-
Interpretation of Statutes-Basic Rules-Plain meaning-Words in the 
statute should be given their natural ordinary meaning-Nothing should be B 
added nor should any word be treated as otiose. 
The appellant was owner of a building in which he was running a hotel 
and a ba.r and had also let out•a part or the building ("the premises") to the 
respondent who was running a shop there. Appellant sought eviction of the 
respondent from the premises under Section 11(8) of the Kerala Buildings C 
(Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 on bona fide personal requirement of 
the tenanted premises for use as jewellery and textile shop. The eviction was 
contested by the respondent on the basis that running the provision shop in 
the premises was· his sole source of income for his livelihood whereas 
appellant had other vacant accommodation for doing the additional business. D 
Rent Controller found that appellant was not in need of additional 
accommodation and that if the respondent was evicted he would be put to more 
hardship than the benefit that would be fetched to the appellant, and thus 
dismissed the eviction petition of the appellant. On appeal, the Appellate 
Authority held against the appellant both on the bona fide requirement and 
on the question of comparative hardship. Appellant, thereafter, filed a revision E 
before the High Court which was also dismissed. However, High Court did 
not consider the comparative hardship, to the parties while dismissing the 
revision. Hence the appeal. 
It was contended by the appellant tliat Section 11(8) of the Act enabled F 
a landlord to claim additional accommodation for his bona fide personal use 
and that the High Court was wrong in confining the personal use of the 
landlord-appellant to expansion of additional business only. 
It was contended by the respondent that for purposes of starting any 
business the provision of Section 11(3) of the Act would have to be invoked G 
and that Section 11(8) applies only when the landlord's need for additional 
accommodation relates to expansion of his existing business. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
HELD: 1.1. Section 11(10) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent H 
614 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999] SUPP. I S.C.R. 
A Control) Act, 1965 is in the nature of a 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.