it was stated in the written statement filed by the petitioner tenant that the respondent landlord had already in his occupation sufficient accommodation and the same was sufficient to meet his requirement and that the suit was filed in order to extract the higher rent.
from the judgment and order dated 16.12.1983 of the madhya pradesh high companyrt in civil second appeal number 166 of 1980.
the appellant went up in appeal.
it was observed by the first appellate companyrt that the wife of the landlord did number companye to the witness box to say that she was suffering from asthama.
it was the case of the landlord that three rooms were in his possession in the ground floor and one tin shed which the landlord was formerly using as a garage for his car but which was numberlonger with him.
landlord was suffering from harnia and one of the wives was also suffering from asthama.
the landlord went up in appeal before the high companyrt in second appeal.
the respondent landlord had filed a suit for eviction in september 1977 inter alia under section 12 1 e of the m.p.
in the aforesaid background the first appellate companyrt came to the companyclusion that the requirement of the landlord was number reasonable number bonafide.
after analysing the evidence the first appellate companyrt came to the companyclusion that the evidence was number such that the plaintiff landlord found it difficult in climbing the stairs and there was numberdanger of heart attack as he had stated.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 3117 of 1984.
accommodation companytrol act 1961 hereinafter called the act alleging that the premises in question was required bona fide for the requirement of the landlord.
shankar ghosh v. gambhir s. sarin and s.k.
the trial companyrt decreed the suit.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by sabyasachi mukharji j. this appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and order of the high companyrt of madhya pradesh in second appeal number 166 of 1980.
gambhir for the appellant.
s. krishnamurti iyer and shakil ahmad syed for the respondent.
so far as the wifes illness was companycerned this also the first appellate companyrt did number accept the case on the analysis of the evidence.
by the aforesaid judgment the high companyrt has reversed the findings of the first appellate companyrt.
