To sustain this burden affidavits were obtained by the applicant from the persons who had the proprietary interest in lots 44, 45, 84, 86 and 87, which are in the immediate vicinity of lot 85. In effect, the various deponents stated that they were familiar with the lots in the plan of subdivision and, to the best of their knowledge, information and belief, the granting of the modification sought by the applicant would cause no damage to any of the said lots, nor indeed cause their value to depreciate. With the exception of the owner of lot 84, who, if I understand the chronology of the disposal of the lots on the subdivision, would not have been entitled to the benefit of the covenant, each deponent also swore that his or her own particular lot would not be injured by the restrictive covenant being modified nor its value depreciated. The applicant also obtained and filed an affidavit from an estate agent who knew the area well. He stated his belief that, if the restrictive covenant were modified, neither the value of the lots which have the benefit of the covenant would be depreciated nor would the modification substantially injure the persons entitled to the benefit thereof. The deponent, however, did not give any grounds for his belief other than his expressed familiarity with the area. [810] Despite what Long Innes, CJ in Eq, said in Re Rose Bay Bowling and Recreation Club Ltd (1935) 52 WN (NSW) 77, at p. 78, I am of opinion that the Court has a discretion to grant or refuse the application, even though the grounds may be proved by the applicant: see Driscoll v Church Commissioners for England, [1957] 1 QB 330; [1956] 3 All ER 802, and Re Ghey and Galton's Application, [1957] 2 QB 650, at p. 660; [1957] 3 All ER 164. In the last-mentioned case the Court of Appeal has approved of the approach made by Farwell, J, in an application under paragraph (a) of the section [s84(1) of the Law of Property Act 1925] in Re Henderson's Conveyance, [1940] 1 Ch 835, at p. 846; [1940] 4 All ER 1. The Court of Appeal further indicated that, although these remarks were made with respect to paragraph (a), they afforded a useful prelude to any application made under s84(1). Farwell, J, said: "Speaking for myself, I do not view this section of the Act as designed to enable a person to expropriate the private rights of another purely for his own profit. I am not suggesting that there may not be cases where it would be right to remove or modify a restriction against the will of the person who has the benefit of that restriction, either with or without compensation, in a case where it seems necessary to do so because it prevents in some way the proper development of the neighbouring property or for some such reason of that kind; but in my judgment this section of the Act was not designed, at any rate prima facie, to enable one owner to get a benefit by being freed from the restrictions imposed upon his property in favour of a neighbouring owner, merely because, in the view of the person who desires the restriction to go it would make his property more enjoyable or more convenient for his own private purposes. I do not think the section was designed with a view to benefiting one private individual at the expense of another private individual. At any rate, primarily, that was not in my judgment, the object of this section. If a case is to be made out under this section, there must be some proper evidence that the restriction is no longer necessary for any reasonable purpose of the person who is enjoying the benefit of it, or that by reason of a change in the character of the property or the neighbourhood, the restriction is one which is no longer to be enforceable or has become of no value." These words were uttered in relation to paragraph (a), but they indicate the kind of burden that is imposed upon an applicant