SAVITRI SAHAY Vs. SACHIDANAND PRASAD
LAWS(SC)-2002-10-92
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: PATNA)
Decided on
October 31,2002
SAVITRI SAHAY
Appellant
VERSUS
SACHIDANAND PRASAD
Respondents
Cited Judgements :-
SEWANTABAI W/O. TILAKCHAND BAGE VS. GANGARAM S/O. CHAITANYA KOLTE & ANR. [LAWS(BOM)-2004-3-204] [REFERRED TO]MOHAMMED ABDUL RAHMAN VS. B MANORAMA [LAWS(APH)-2008-4-43] [REFERRED TO]
(SMT.) AISHA BEGAM VS. IIND A.D.J., BANDA AND ANOTHER [LAWS(ALL)-2005-7-272] [REFERRED TO]
DEV RAJ DUGGAL VS. HARISH KUMAR [LAWS(HPH)-2022-10-21] [REFERRED TO]
MURUKESAN S. VS. KUTHIRUMMAL ABDUL SALAM [LAWS(KER)-2020-3-611] [REFERRED TO]
GOPAL RAM VS. GOVIND RAM [LAWS(RAJ)-2012-5-250] [REFERRED TO]
SUMERMALL JAIN VS. SMT. TANUSREE DUTTA [LAWS(JHAR)-2015-7-170] [REFERRED TO]
BHAGWAN DAS RAMESH KUMAR VS. JAGABANDHU DHAR [LAWS(GAU)-2005-9-68] [REFERRED TO]
AHMED ANSARI VS. NAZMUL HODA ANSARI [LAWS(PAT)-2012-4-56] [REFERRED TO]
SUNIL KUMAR JAISWAL, S/O SRI LAXMI PRASAD JAISWAL VS. SURAJ BHAN THAKUR, S/O LATE NARSINGH THAKUR [LAWS(JHAR)-2017-5-123] [REFERRED TO]
JANATHA DRUGS VS. MAITHRI CONSTRUCTION [LAWS(KER)-2007-9-17] [REFERRED TO]
SATYAWATI VS. BHAGWAT GOEL [LAWS(DLH)-2004-8-106] [REFERRED TO]
PRASANTA KUMAR CHAKRABORTY AND OTHERS VS. KALYANI KALI AND OTHERS [LAWS(CAL)-2015-3-143] [REFERRED]
N L JOSE VS. FAISAL RAJ [LAWS(KER)-2017-3-136] [REFERRED TO]
HARI SINGH, SON OF LATE RAM KISHUN SINGH, RESIDENT OF QUARTER NO. 314, SECTOR VS. HINDUSTAN STEEL WORKS CONSTRUCTION LIMITED, A GOVERNMENT OF INDIA UNDERTAKING HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT 5/11, COMMISSARIAT ROAD, HASTINGS, KOLKATA [LAWS(JHAR)-2016-10-21] [REFERRED TO]
RAVI ATAL VS. GANGA DEVI [LAWS(PAT)-2012-1-27] [REFERRED TO]
BHAIROOU LAL S/O MANGI LAL VS. RAMESH CHANDRA MALIWAL S/O BALU RAM [LAWS(RAJ)-2018-5-231] [REFERRED TO]
MADAN LAL GUPTA VS. AVINASH PARTAP [LAWS(HPH)-2014-3-40] [REFERRED TO]
GOVERDHANDAS MULCHAND AGRAWAL VS. BHERULAL UDERAM BAGADE [LAWS(BOM)-2004-9-10] [REFERRED TO]
FAISAL RAJ, S/O. PUTHANVEETIL ABDUL HAMEED, VELIYANNUR DESOM, THRISSUR TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN VS. N.L. JOSE, S/O. NELLISSERY LONAPPAN, ARANATTUKARA VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT [LAWS(KER)-2017-3-54] [REFERRED TO]
SANTOSH KUMAR SHARMA VS. VITH ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE SAHARANPUR [LAWS(ALL)-2006-1-43] [REFERRED TO]
BISWANATH NANDY VS. ASISH KUMAR PAL [LAWS(CAL)-2012-10-3] [REFERRED TO]
ARIHANT TRADING AGENCY VS. SHANKAR LAL BHARTIA [LAWS(JHAR)-2009-11-15] [REFERRED TO]
ABHAY CHANDRA JHA VS. BRIJESHWARI DEVI ALIAS BIRJI DEVI [LAWS(PAT)-2004-1-24] [REFERRED TO]
Sohail Karimi VS. Sanjida Begam [LAWS(JHAR)-2012-11-87] [REFERRED TO]
ARUN KUMAR CHOUDHARY AND ORS. VS. MUKTA SINGH [LAWS(PAT)-2020-1-170] [REFERRED TO]
AMARJEET SINGH MEHTA VS. SIMANCHAL [LAWS(JHAR)-2009-12-26] [REFERRED TO]
SHAM LAL VS. RAMA SHARMA [LAWS(HPH)-2015-10-17] [REFERRED TO]
HARI SINGH SON OF MUNSHI RAM VS. SH DEVENDER PRATAP SON OF KARAM SINGH [LAWS(HPH)-2016-10-165] [REFERRED TO]
RAYAPURAJU VENKATARAMA RAO VS. GANGADHARAN NAIR [LAWS(APH)-2011-9-91] [REFERRED TO]
RANGALAL AGARWAL VS. HIMAYATH BEGUM [LAWS(APH)-2005-10-68] [REFERRED TO]
PRASANTA KUMER KUNDU AND ORS. VS. KANAILAL KHAN [LAWS(CAL)-2015-3-28] [REFERRED TO]
PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK VS. ANKUR SINGLA AND OTHERS [LAWS(P&H)-2006-4-351] [REFERRED TO]
K K VALSAN VS. C M FURTAL [LAWS(KER)-2004-11-47] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
S. N. Variava, J. -
(1.)This appeal is against a Judgment dated 24th September, 1998.
(2.)Briefly stated the facts are as follows : The Appellant is the owner of premises bearing No. 29A, Police Line Road, Ward No. 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. 15 of 1991 against the respondent on the ground that the said flat was required by her for her own occupation. The appellant claimed that she was staying in premises belonging to her son and that her son had asked her to vacate the premises. The appellant claimed that she wanted the flat occupied by the respondent as it was on the ground floor and on the northern side of the building and contiguous to the ancestral building where she was presently residing, i.e. Shiva Bhawan. The appellant also claimed that the said flat faced an open piece of land which belonged to her husband. The appellant claimed that she being old could not climb to the first floor and the ground floor flat on the south side of the building was not suitable as it faced a crowded road and was noisy.
(3.)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. The respondent also claimed that Shiva Bhawan, in which the appellant presently resides is a palatial bungalow and that the appellant comes from a very affluent and dignified family and would not reside in the small flat. The respondent claimed that the appellant was claiming possession merely to get the respondent out and then to let it out at a higher rent.
(2.)Briefly stated the facts are as follows : The Appellant is the owner of premises bearing No. 29A, Police Line Road, Ward No. 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. 15 of 1991 against the respondent on the ground that the said flat was required by her for her own occupation. The appellant claimed that she was staying in premises belonging to her son and that her son had asked her to vacate the premises. The appellant claimed that she wanted the flat occupied by the respondent as it was on the ground floor and on the northern side of the building and contiguous to the ancestral building where she was presently residing, i.e. Shiva Bhawan. The appellant also claimed that the said flat faced an open piece of land which belonged to her husband. The appellant claimed that she being old could not climb to the first floor and the ground floor flat on the south side of the building was not suitable as it faced a crowded road and was noisy.
(3.)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. The respondent also claimed that Shiva Bhawan, in which the appellant presently resides is a palatial bungalow and that the appellant comes from a very affluent and dignified family and would not reside in the small flat. The respondent claimed that the appellant was claiming possession merely to get the respondent out and then to let it out at a higher rent.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.