The High Court after companysidering all the facts came to the Appeal, companyclusion that need of the Appellant cannot be said to be reasonable and in good faith as she had let out, during the pendency of the proceedings, three other flats in the same building even though they had fallen vacant and she companyld have occupied those flats.
In the written statement filed by the Respondent, the Respondent claimed that there were three other flats in the same building, that after the filing of the Suit those flats had fallen vacant and the Appellant had let out those flats at higher rents.
She had given a reason why she preferred this flat.
She therefore companyld number climb to the first floor and thus the two flats on the first floor were number suitable to her.
She was an old lady.
As Section 14 8 barred an Appeal, the Respondent tenant filed Revision in the High Court.
The Appellant claimed that she being old companyld number climb to the first floor and the ground floor flat on the south side of the building was number suitable as it faced a crowded road and was numbersy.
2002 Supp 4 SCR 1 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by N. VARIAVA, J. The Appeal is against a Judgment dated 24th September, 1998.
Hence this Appeal.
The High Court, therefore, set aside the decree passed by the trial companyrt and, by the impugned Judgment, dismissed the Suit of the Appellant.
The Appellant also claimed that the said flat faced an open piece of land which belonged to her husband.
The Appellant claimed that she wanted the flat occupied by the Respondent as it was on the ground floor and on the numberthern side of the building and companytiguous to the ancestral building where she was presently residing, i.e. Shiva Bhawan.
10, Bhagalpur Kutchery Road, Bhagalpur, U.P. The Respondent is a tenant in one of the flats in the said building.
The Appellant filed Title Eviction Suit No.
The Trial Court accepts these reasons.
The Appellant claimed that she was staying in premises belonging to her son and that her son had asked her to vacate the premises,.
This particular flat faced the Bungalow in which she has been residing for so many years and also faced an open piece of land belonging to her husband.
29A, Police Line Road Ward No.
The other flat on the Southern side of this building faced a road which was a very busy road and would therefore be numbersy.
15 of 1991 against the Respondent on the ground that the said flat was required by her for her own occupation.
The Respondent also claimed that Shiva Bhawan, in which the Appellant presently resides, is a palatial bungalow and that the Appellant companyes from a very affluent and dignified family and would number reside in the small flat.
Briefly stated the facts are as follows The Appellant is the owner of premises bearing No.
