{"id":106707,"date":"1999-08-19T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1999-08-18T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/davis-vs-sebastian-on-19-august-1999"},"modified":"2017-05-17T08:03:11","modified_gmt":"2017-05-17T02:33:11","slug":"davis-vs-sebastian-on-19-august-1999","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/davis-vs-sebastian-on-19-august-1999","title":{"rendered":"Davis vs Sebastian on 19 August, 1999"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Davis vs Sebastian on 19 August, 1999<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: Syed Shah Quadri<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: V.N.Khare, Syed Shah Quadri<\/div>\n<pre>           PETITIONER:\nDAVIS\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSEBASTIAN\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t19\/08\/1999\n\nBENCH:\nV.N.Khare, Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri\n\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI, J<\/p>\n<p>      This  appeal  is\tfrom the judgment and order  of\t the<br \/>\nDivision  Bench of the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam  in<br \/>\nC.R.P.\t No.1778 of 1991-C dated July 28, 1994.\t The polemic<br \/>\ncentres\t round\tinterpretation of the  expression  &#8216;personal<br \/>\nuse&#8217;  in  sub-section  (8)  of\tSection\t 11  of\t the  Kerala<br \/>\nBuildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (for short &#8216;the<br \/>\nKerala Act&#8217;).\n<\/p>\n<p>      A\t brief\tnarration of the facts giving rise  to\tthis<br \/>\nappeal\tis necessary to appreciate the question involved  in<br \/>\nthis  case.   The  question  of\t bona  fide  requirement  of<br \/>\nadditional  accommodation  under  Section 11(8) of  the\t Act<br \/>\nalone  is canvassed before us so we are confining the  facts<br \/>\nrelevant  to that ground.  The appellant is the landlord and<br \/>\nthe  respondent\t is  the tenant of a shop room\twhich  is  a<br \/>\nportion\t of  the  main building\t of  Irinjalakkuda  Village,<br \/>\nMukundapuram  Taluk,  (hereinafter  referred   to  as\t&#8216;the<br \/>\npremises&#8217;).   In the main building the appellant was running<br \/>\nthe business of hotel-cum-bar.\tOn the plea that he had made<br \/>\nall preparations for starting a jewellery shop and a textile<br \/>\nshop and bona fide requires additional accommodation for the<br \/>\nproposed  business,  he\t filed R.C.P.No.31 of  1983  seeking<br \/>\neviction of the respondent from the premises.  The ground of<br \/>\nbona  fide  requirement\t of  the  appellant  for  additional<br \/>\naccommodation  was  opposed by the respondent.\t He  averred<br \/>\nthat  he was running a provision shop in the premises  which<br \/>\nwas  his  sole source of income for his livelihood  and\t the<br \/>\nappellant was having other vacant accommodation which he let<br \/>\nout  to\t others.  The learned Rent Controller  recorded\t the<br \/>\nfinding\t that  the appellant was not in need  of  additional<br \/>\naccommodation.\tIt was also found that if the respondent was<br \/>\nevicted\t from the premises he would be put to more  hardship<br \/>\nthan the benefit that would be fetched to the appellant.  In<br \/>\nthat  view of the matter, the Rent Controller dismissed\t the<br \/>\neviction   petition  on\t 7th   June,  1986.   The   landlord<br \/>\nunsuccessfully\tassailed the said order before the Appellate<br \/>\nAuthority  in R.C.A.  No.39 of 1990.  Both, on the  question<br \/>\nof bona fide requirement of the landlord and on the question<br \/>\nof  comparative\t hardship,  the\t  Appellate  Authority\theld<br \/>\nagainst\t the  appellant\/landlord.   Aggrieved  thereby,\t the<br \/>\nappellant  filed  C.R.P.  No.1778 of 1991-C before the\tHigh<br \/>\nCourt  of  Kerala.   The Division Bench of  the\t High  Court<br \/>\ndismissed  the\tRevision on 28th July 1994.  It\t is  against<br \/>\nthat  order of the High Court, the appellant is in appeal by<br \/>\nspecial leave.\n<\/p>\n<p>      Mr.K.  Sukumaran, learned senior counsel appearing for<br \/>\nthe  appellant, invited our attention to sub-section (8)  of<br \/>\nSection\t 11  of the Kerala Act and argued that it enabled  a<br \/>\nlandlord to claim additional accommodation for his bona fide<br \/>\npersonal  use and that the High Court committed grave  error<br \/>\nof  law\t in  confining the personal use of the\tlandlord  to<br \/>\nexpansion of the existing business only.\n<\/p>\n<p>      Mr.   Ramesh  Babu, learned counsel appearing for\t the<br \/>\nrespondent,  has contended that for purposes of starting any<br \/>\nbusiness  the  provisions of Section 11(3) will have  to  be<br \/>\ninvoked\t and  that  Section  11(8)  applies  only  when\t the<br \/>\nlandlord&#8217;s  need  for  additional accommodation\t relates  to<br \/>\nexpansion  of  his existing business;  if Section  11(8)  is<br \/>\ninterpreted  as\t contended by the appellant, then rigour  of<br \/>\nSection 11(3) will be diluted and it will be circumvented by<br \/>\nhaving recourse to sub-section (8).\n<\/p>\n<p>      To  appreciate the contentions of the learned counsel,<br \/>\nit  will  be  appropriate  to refer to\tsub-section  (8)  of<br \/>\nSection 11 of the Kerala Act which reads as under :\n<\/p>\n<p>      &#8220;11(8).\tA landlord who is occupying only a part of a<br \/>\nbuilding,  may apply to the Rent Control Court for an  order<br \/>\ndirecting  any tenant occupying the whole or any portion  of<br \/>\nthe  remaining\tpart of the building to put the landlord  in<br \/>\npossession  thereof, if he requires additional accommodation<br \/>\nfor his personal use.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>      A\t plain\treading of the provision,  extracted  above,<br \/>\nshows  that the requirements of sub-section (8) under  which<br \/>\nthe  claim is made by the landlord are :  (i) a landlord  is<br \/>\noccupying  only\t a part of a building;\t(ii) the  tenant  is<br \/>\noccupying  the whole or any portion of the remaining part of<br \/>\nthe  building;\t and (iii) the landlord requires  additional<br \/>\naccommodation for his personal use.  We may notice here that<br \/>\nsub-section   (10)  is\tin  the\t  nature  of  a\t proviso  to<br \/>\nsub-sections (3), (4) and (8).\tIt mandates that if the Rent<br \/>\nController is satisfied that the claim of the landlord under<br \/>\nsub-sections  (3),  (4), (7) and (8) is bona fide, he  shall<br \/>\nmake  an  order thereunder but if he is not so satisfied  he<br \/>\nshall  make  an order rejecting the application.  The  first<br \/>\nproviso\t to  sub-section (10) provides an additional  ground<br \/>\nfor  rejection of the application under sub-section (8) and,<br \/>\nthat  is,  if the Controller is satisfied that the  hardship<br \/>\nwhich  may be caused to the tenant by ordering his eviction,<br \/>\nwill  outweigh the advantage to the landlord.  In the  event<br \/>\nof  granting  the application the second proviso comes\tinto<br \/>\noperation   and\t empowers  the\t Rent  Controller  to  grant<br \/>\nreasonable  time  to the tenant for putting the landlord  in<br \/>\npossession  of the building which may be extended from\ttime<br \/>\nto  time up to three months.  While providing a ground to  a<br \/>\nlandlord  to claim additional accommodation for his personal<br \/>\nuse,  possible care has been taken to safeguard the interest<br \/>\nof a tenant.\n<\/p>\n<p>      There  is\t no controversy in regard to  compliance  of<br \/>\nrequirements of (i) and (ii) of sub-section (8) noted above.<br \/>\nIn  hoc requirement (iii), the landlord has to show that  he<br \/>\nbona fide requires additional accommodation for his personal<br \/>\nuse.   The  High  Court\t held that the\trequirement  of\t the<br \/>\nlandlord  should  relate  to the same purpose,\tnamely,\t for<br \/>\nexpansion of his existing business of hotel-cum-bar and that<br \/>\nas  the\t appellant intended to start a\tdifferent  business,<br \/>\nnamely,\t  the  jewellery  and\ttextile\t business,  in\t the<br \/>\nadditional  accommodation,  the\t case  did  not\t fall  under<br \/>\nSection 11(8) of the Kerala Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>      Now,  what is the meaning of the expression  &#8216;personal<br \/>\nuse&#8217; in sub- section (8)?  It is a well-settled principle of<br \/>\ninterpretation\tthat words in a statute shall be given their<br \/>\nnatural,  ordinary meaning;  nothing should be added to them<br \/>\nnor should any word be treated as otiose.  Two comprehensive<br \/>\nexpressions  &#8216;additional  accommodation&#8217; and &#8216;personal\tuse&#8217;<br \/>\nare employed in sub-section (8).  The expression &#8216;additional<br \/>\naccommodation&#8217;\ttakes  in both residential as well  as\tnon-<br \/>\nresidential buildings.\t&#8216;Personal use&#8217; is also an expression<br \/>\nof  wide  amplitude.   There is nothing in  the\t sub-section<br \/>\nwhich  restricts  the import of that expression.   The\tsaid<br \/>\nrequirement  of sub-section (8) will be complied with on the<br \/>\nsatisfaction  of the Controller about bona fide need of\t the<br \/>\nadditional  accommodation for personal use of the  landlord.<br \/>\nTo  what use the additional accommodation should be put,  is<br \/>\nthe   choice   of   the\t landlord.   In\t the   case   of   a<br \/>\nnon-residential\t building  whether a new business should  be<br \/>\nset  up in the additional accommodation or whether it should<br \/>\nbe  used  for  expansion of the existing business,  is\tleft<br \/>\nentirely  to  the option of the landlord.  This,  being\t the<br \/>\nintendment  of the legislature, the Court cannot impose\t any<br \/>\nrestriction  with  regard  to  the  use\t of  the  additional<br \/>\naccommodation  from  which  the eviction of  the  tenant  is<br \/>\nsought.\n<\/p>\n<p>      In  Joseph  vs.\tFrancis [1965 KLT 1113],  a  learned<br \/>\nSingle\tJudge  of the Kerala High Court correctly  construed<br \/>\nSection 11(8) of the Kerala Act when he held that it was the<br \/>\nlandlord&#8217;s  choice to decide what business he would carry on<br \/>\nand  that  a Court would not be justified in saying that  he<br \/>\nrequired  the building bona fide for his own use only if  he<br \/>\nrequired it for expanding his existing trade.\n<\/p>\n<p>      Thus,   it  follows  that\t  the\tphrase\t &#8216;additional<br \/>\naccommodation  for personal use of the landlord&#8217; may  relate<br \/>\nto  residential\t purpose  as  well  as\tfor  non-residential<br \/>\npurpose.   Where it relates to non-residential purpose there<br \/>\nis  no\treason to restrict personal use of the landlord\t for<br \/>\nthe  purpose of only expansion of the existing business.  He<br \/>\ncan  put  the additional accommodation, so long as  he\tbona<br \/>\nfide need it, to any business or purpose of his choice.\n<\/p>\n<p>      Here,  it\t may be useful to refer to in  pari  materia<br \/>\nenactments  of\tother States.  In Andhra  Pradesh  Buildings<br \/>\n(Lease, Rent &amp; Eviction) Control Act, 1960, Section 10(3)(c)<br \/>\ndeals  with  granting  order  of eviction  on  the  plea  of<br \/>\nadditional  accommodation.  It provides that in the case  of<br \/>\nnon-residential\t building  the landlord has to show that  he<br \/>\nrequires  the additional accommodation for the purpose of  a<br \/>\nbusiness  which\t he is carrying on;  thus under\t Andhra\t Act<br \/>\nadditional  accommodation can be sought for purposes of\t the<br \/>\nbusiness  which the landlord is carrying on.  So also  under<br \/>\nSection\t 10(3)(c) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease &amp;\tRent<br \/>\nControl)  Act  1960, the additional accommodation  for\tnon-<br \/>\nresidential  purposes  can  be claimed for purposes  of\t the<br \/>\nbusiness which the landlord is carrying on.\n<\/p>\n<p>      <a href=\"\/doc\/686582\/\">In  Shri\tBalaganesan Metals vs.\tShri  M.N.Shanmugham<br \/>\nChetty\t&amp; Ors.<\/a>\t[1987 (1) RCR 586], while construing Section<br \/>\n(10)(3)(c)  of\tTamil Nadu Act, this Court held that once  a<br \/>\nlandlord  has satisfied the Controller that he was bona fide<br \/>\nin  need  of  additional accommodation\tfor  residential  or<br \/>\nnon-residential\t purposes and that the advantage derived  by<br \/>\nhim  by\t an  order of eviction will  outweigh  the  hardship<br \/>\ncaused\tto  the tenant, then the landlord is entitled to  an<br \/>\norder of eviction irrespective of any other consideration.\n<\/p>\n<p>      It  may  be pointed out here in contra distinction  to<br \/>\nthe  other enactments that under Section 11(8) of the Kerala<br \/>\nAct  claim  for additional accommodation is not confined  to<br \/>\nexpansion of the business which the landlord is carrying on.<br \/>\nAs  pointed  above,  the landlord has a wider  choice  under<br \/>\nSection\t 11(8)\tof the Act.  He can use it at his option  in<br \/>\ncase  of non-residential accommodation, either for expansion<br \/>\nof existing business or for a new business.\n<\/p>\n<p>      The  contention that if the expression &#8216;personal\tuse&#8217;<br \/>\nunder  sub-  section (8) is interpreted to include &#8216;use\t for<br \/>\nany  business&#8217;, it will dilute the rigour of Section  11(3),<br \/>\nwhich  is devoid of merit.  We shall notice sub-section\t (3)<br \/>\nof  Section 11 of the Act here to examine the contention  of<br \/>\nthe learned counsel :\n<\/p>\n<p>      &#8220;Section\t11(3).\t A  landlord may apply to  the\tRent<br \/>\nControl\t Court for an order directing the tenant to put\t the<br \/>\nlandlord in possession of the building if he bona fide needs<br \/>\nthe building for his own occupation or for the occupation by<br \/>\nany member of his family dependent on him :\n<\/p>\n<p>      Provided\tthat  the Rent Control Court shall not\tgive<br \/>\nany  such direction if the landlord has another building  of<br \/>\nhis  own in his possession in the same city, town or village<br \/>\nexcept\twhere  the Rent Control Court is satisfied that\t for<br \/>\nspecial\t reasons, in any particular case it will be just and<br \/>\nproper to do so:\n<\/p>\n<p>      Provided further that the Rent Control Court shall not<br \/>\ngive  any  direction  to  a tenant to put  the\tlandlord  in<br \/>\npossession,  if such tenant is depending for his  livelihood<br \/>\nmainly\ton  the\t income derived from any trade\tor  business<br \/>\ncarried\t on in such building and there is no other  suitable<br \/>\nbuilding  available in the locality for such person to carry<br \/>\non such trade or business.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>      (Provisos 3 and 4 are not relevant for our purposes).\n<\/p>\n<p>      To  secure the eviction of a tenant under\t sub-section<br \/>\n(3),  a landlord has to show that :  (i) he bona fide  needs<br \/>\nthe building for his own occupation or for the occupation of<br \/>\nany  member  of\t his  family dependent\ton  him;   (ii)\t the<br \/>\nbuilding  of which eviction is sought, is in the  occupation<br \/>\nof a tenant;  and (iii) he does not have another building of<br \/>\nhis  own in his possession in the same city town or  village<br \/>\nor  if\the has such a building in his possession,  the\tRent<br \/>\nController  will  have to be satisfied for  special  reasons<br \/>\nthat  it will be just and proper to order eviction of tenant<br \/>\nfrom  the  building  in\t occupation   of  the  tenant.\t The<br \/>\nlegislative mandate to the Rent Controller is not to pass an<br \/>\norder\tdirecting  the\ttenant\tto   put  the  landlord\t  in<br \/>\npossession,  if such tenant is depending for his  livelihood<br \/>\nmainly\ton  the\t income derived from any trade\tor  business<br \/>\ncarried\t on  in\t such  building and if\tthere  is  no  other<br \/>\nsuitable  building available in the locality for such person<br \/>\nto  carry on such trade or business.  Thus, it is seen\tthat<br \/>\nwhereas\t before passing an order under sub-section (8),\t the<br \/>\nrequirement  of comparative hardship is to be considered  by<br \/>\nthe  Rent  Controller and it is only when the hardship\tthat<br \/>\nmay  be caused to the tenant by granting an order in  favour<br \/>\nof  the landlord will outweigh the advantage to the landlord<br \/>\nthat the Rent Controller has to reject the application.\t But<br \/>\nunder  sub-section  (3)\t no order of  eviction\tagainst\t the<br \/>\ntenant\tcan be passed if he is dependent for his  livelihood<br \/>\nmainly\ton  the\t income derived from any trade\tor  business<br \/>\ncarried\t on in such building and there is no other  suitable<br \/>\nbuilding  available in the locality for such person to carry<br \/>\non  such  trade or business.  There is yet  another  feature<br \/>\nwhich  distinguishes sub- section (3) from sub-section\t(8).<br \/>\nWhereas\t possession  of another building in the\t same  city,<br \/>\ntown or village except when the Rent Controller is satisfied<br \/>\nfor  special  reasons,\tis  a bar for passing  an  order  of<br \/>\neviction  under\t sub-section (3) but the basis\tof  claiming<br \/>\nsuch  an order under sub-section (8) is that the landlord is<br \/>\nin  occupation\tof a part of the building and he  needs\t the<br \/>\nremaining  part\t of  the building or a\tportion\t thereof  in<br \/>\noccupation of the tenant as additional accommodation for his<br \/>\npersonal  use.\t Thus  it is seen that the  requirements  of<br \/>\nsub-section (3) and sub-section (8) are different.  There is<br \/>\nno  scope  for a case falling under sub-section (3) to\thave<br \/>\nrecourse  to  sub-section (8) and thus diluting\t sub-section<br \/>\n(3).\n<\/p>\n<p>      Now,  the germane aspect which remains to be  adverted<br \/>\nto  is\tthe requirement of the first proviso to\t sub-section<br \/>\n(10)  of  Section  11, namely, comparative hardship  to\t the<br \/>\ntenant.\t  The  learned\tRent  Controller   as  well  as\t the<br \/>\nAppellate  Authority  held  against the\t appellant  on\tthis<br \/>\naspect.\t  The High Court did not consider this aspect in the<br \/>\nview  it had taken of Section 11(8) of the Act.\t For all the<br \/>\nabove reasons, we are of the opinion that even after holding<br \/>\nthat  bona  fide requirement of the landlord for  additional<br \/>\naccommodation  for  personal use is established, the  relief<br \/>\nunder  sub- section (8) of Section 11, cannot be granted  to<br \/>\nhim  without recording a finding under the first proviso  to<br \/>\nsub-section  (10) of Section 11 of the Act in favour of\t the<br \/>\nlandlord.   Since,  the\t High Court did\t not  consider\tthis<br \/>\naspect, we are of the opinion that the matter has to go back<br \/>\nto  the\t High Court for fresh consideration in the light  of<br \/>\nthis judgment.\tThe judgment and order of the Division Bench<br \/>\nunder  appeal  is,  therefore,\tset aside and  the  case  is<br \/>\nremitted  to the High Court for fresh disposal in accordance<br \/>\nwith  law.   The appeal is allowed as indicated\t above.\t  No<br \/>\ncosts.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Davis vs Sebastian on 19 August, 1999 Author: Syed Shah Quadri Bench: V.N.Khare, Syed Shah Quadri PETITIONER: DAVIS Vs. RESPONDENT: SEBASTIAN DATE OF JUDGMENT: 19\/08\/1999 BENCH: V.N.Khare, Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri JUDGMENT: SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI, J This appeal is from the judgment and order of the Division Bench of the [&hellip;]<\/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-106707","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.0 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Davis vs Sebastian on 19 August, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/davis-vs-sebastian-on-19-august-1999\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Davis vs Sebastian on 19 August, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/davis-vs-sebastian-on-19-august-1999\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1999-08-18T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-05-17T02:33:11+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=\"12 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/davis-vs-sebastian-on-19-august-1999#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/davis-vs-sebastian-on-19-august-1999\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Davis vs Sebastian on 19 August, 1999\",\"datePublished\":\"1999-08-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-05-17T02:33:11+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/davis-vs-sebastian-on-19-august-1999\"},\"wordCount\":2468,\"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\/davis-vs-sebastian-on-19-august-1999#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/davis-vs-sebastian-on-19-august-1999\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/davis-vs-sebastian-on-19-august-1999\",\"name\":\"Davis vs Sebastian on 19 August, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1999-08-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-05-17T02:33:11+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/davis-vs-sebastian-on-19-august-1999#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/davis-vs-sebastian-on-19-august-1999\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/davis-vs-sebastian-on-19-august-1999#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Davis vs Sebastian on 19 August, 1999\"}]},{\"@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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"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":"Davis vs Sebastian on 19 August, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/davis-vs-sebastian-on-19-august-1999","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Davis vs Sebastian on 19 August, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/davis-vs-sebastian-on-19-august-1999","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1999-08-18T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-05-17T02:33:11+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":"12 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/davis-vs-sebastian-on-19-august-1999#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/davis-vs-sebastian-on-19-august-1999"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Davis vs Sebastian on 19 August, 1999","datePublished":"1999-08-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-05-17T02:33:11+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/davis-vs-sebastian-on-19-august-1999"},"wordCount":2468,"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\/davis-vs-sebastian-on-19-august-1999#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/davis-vs-sebastian-on-19-august-1999","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/davis-vs-sebastian-on-19-august-1999","name":"Davis vs Sebastian on 19 August, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1999-08-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-05-17T02:33:11+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/davis-vs-sebastian-on-19-august-1999#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/davis-vs-sebastian-on-19-august-1999"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/davis-vs-sebastian-on-19-august-1999#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Davis vs Sebastian on 19 August, 1999"}]},{"@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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","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\/106707","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=106707"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/106707\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=106707"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=106707"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=106707"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}