WEST END HOTEL PVT. LTD. Vs. MANU SUBEDAR
LAWS(BOM)-1972-6-12
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Decided on June 28,1972

West End Hotel Pvt. Ltd. Appellant
VERSUS
MANU SUBEDAR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

G.N. Vaidya, J. - (1.) The petitioner is a Company by name West End Hotel Private Ltd., running a hotel known as West End Hotel in the premises belonging to a Public Charitable Trust known as 'Lotus Trust.' Respondents Nos. 1 to 5-the plaintiffs, are the Trustees of the said Public Trust. The premises consist of a building situated on Plot No. 45, Queen's Road Estate, Marin Lines, Bombay. The building consists of a ground and five upper storey's, There is a compound round the building. That compound includes two garages. The petitioners became the tenants of the said building under an indenture of lease dated May 19, 1948 made between Jupiter Cinema & Hotel Co. Ltd. and the petitioners. Under the said lease the petitioners became the tenants of the building for a period of 20 years beginning from June 1, 1948. The rent which the petitioners had to pay was Rs. 6,500 per month for the building together with the garages. The Jupiter Cinema and Hotel Co., Ltd., executed an indenture of transfer dated April 24, 1954, by which their rights and liabilities under the ease were assigned to the respondents-Trustees on behalf of the Lotus Trust. The tease granted to the petitioners was also subject to the terms and conditions of a head (sic) in respect of the said property dated July 26, 1943 executed by the Governor General of India in favour of the first plaintiff-respondent No. 1. One of the terms of the said lease dated May 19, 1948 was contained in clause 3 (m) which runs as follows : 3 (m) ''To effect and maintain at their cost an insurance in the joint names of the Lessors and Lessees on all equipments and the articles provided by the Lessees in the sum of rupees four Lakhs. Sucre insurance to be effected in the same Company in which the Lessors have insured the demised premises. The Lessees to pay the premium in that behalf and to produce premium receipts for the inspection of the Lessors from time to time. Clause 10 of the said lease-deed provided that if there was any breach of the terms of the tenancy and such breach is not remedied within 15 days after the intimation in that behalf, the lessors shall be at liberty to forfeit the said deposit made by the lessees and also to re-enter after 48 hours' notice to the lessees upon the said demised premises or upon any part thereof in the name of the whole and the tenancy shall thereupon determine but without prejudice to any claim which the lessors may have against the lessees in respect of any breach of the 'ease' covenants herein contained.
(2.) Relying on the breaches of the said lease deed, respondent Nos. 1 to 5 terminated the tenancy of the petitioners and filed on September 19, 1957 a suit for evicting the petitioners and for recovery of arrears of rent and municipal taxes, in the Court of Snail Causes at Bombay under the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947. Eviction was sought on two grounds, viz (I) that the petitioners committed breaches of the terms of tenancy and (2) that respondents Nos. 1 to 5 reasonably and bona fide required the premises for occupation for the purposes of the Lotus Trust. The breaches alleged in the plaint were (a) non-payment of rent (b) non-payment of municipal taxes (r) nonpayment of insurance premium and (d) user of the garages as office and laundry. Respondents Nos. 1 to 5 claimed that the tenancy was forfeited by the notice dated May 14, 1957 in accordance with the terms of the lease.
(3.) The suit was resisted by the petitioners. They contended that the rent charged by the plaintiffs under the lease was in excess of the standard rent and hence the petitioners had filed an application for fixation of standard rent, viz. R. A. N. No. 1240 of 1957, from which the respondents have filed Special Civil Application No. 1207 of 1968 in this Court. The petitioners denied being irregular in payment of rent and submitted that the plaintiffs had accepted the rent as and when tendered and all the irregularities, if any, were waived by them. They also denied having committed breaches of any terms of the lease or the head-lease and submitted that the plaintiffs did not reasonably and bona fide require the premises for the use and occupation of the Trust, and greater hardship would be caused to the petitioners than to the respondents.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.