HOTEL KINGS Vs. SARA FARHAN LUKMANI
LAWS(SC)-2006-11-156
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: BOMBAY)
Decided on November 08,2006

HOTEL KINGS,YASHDHIR HOTELS PVT.LTD. Appellant
VERSUS
SARA FARHAN LUKMANI Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

KRANTI SWAROPP MACHINE TOOLS PVT. LTD. AND ANR. V. KANTA BAI ASAWA (SMT.) AND ORS. [REFERRED TO]
KATNANI PROPERTIES LIMITED VS. AUGUSTINE [REFERRED TO]
BOMBAY MUNICIPAL CORPORATION VS. LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA BOMBAY [REFERRED TO]
SARWAN KUMAR ONKAR NATH VS. SUBHAS KUMAR AGARWALLA [REFERRED TO]
PUSPA SEN GUPTA VS. SUSMA GHOSE [REFERRED TO]
RAJU KAKARA SHETTY VS. RAMESHPRATAPRAOSHIROLE [REFERRED TO]
DINKAR S VAIDYA VS. GANPAT S GORE [REFERRED TO]



Cited Judgements :-

SUPARNA BOSS VS. SANTANU MAJUMDAR [LAWS(CAL)-2007-12-37] [REFERRED TO]
PRAKASH VISHNUPANT TILE VS. RAMCHANDRA GANESH PATHAK [LAWS(BOM)-2007-4-192] [REFERRED TO]
PRAKASH VISHNUPANT TILE VS. RAMCHANDRA GANESH PATHAK [LAWS(BOM)-2007-6-66] [REFERRED TO]
SHASHIKANT G MEHTA VS. SOONOO MINOO KHAJOTIA [LAWS(BOM)-2011-5-53] [REFERRED TO]
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI VS. NK. GUPTA [LAWS(DLH)-2007-7-275] [REFERRED TO]
MUKENDRASINH DHIRUBHA JADEJA VS. JOSHI AND CO OWNERS AND ORS [LAWS(GJH)-2014-10-106] [REFERRED TO]
SHAKUNTALA DEVI DARAK VS. TRANSPORT CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD [LAWS(APH)-2011-6-14] [REFERRED TO]
PRAKASH VISHNUPANT TILE VS. RAMCHANDRA GANESH PATHAK [LAWS(BOM)-2007-6-8] [REFERRED TO]
FAIR PRICE CLOTH STORE,HYDERABAD VS. DR.MALIKANAZ MOHAMMED [LAWS(APH)-2013-10-71] [REFERRED TO]
PYRAMID ENTERTAINMENT VS. DIVYA DEVI [LAWS(KAR)-2018-1-76] [REFERRED TO]
DEVDATT NARAYAN SHETTI VS. PRAHLADBHAI PUNJIRAM PAREKH [LAWS(GJH)-2019-7-95] [REFERRED TO]
BLUE FOX VS. MISS CHITRALEKHA THAMBUCHETTY [LAWS(KAR)-2017-6-214] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

Altamas Kabir, J. - (1.)Leave granted in both the special leave petitions.
(2.)Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 in both the special leave petitions are the owners of a plot of land measuring about 2739.50 sq.yds. bearing survey No. 37, situated at Juhu, Greater Bombay. The said land was leased to one M/s.H. Bloch Engineering Pvt. Ltd. by a registered deed of lease dated 3rd November, 1966. By a deed of assignment dated 8th June, 1970, the said lessee transferred and assigned the demised property to M/s. Yashdhir Hotels Pvt. Ltd., a company registered under the Companies Act. The original lease was for 98 years commencing from 1st November, 1966. By virtue of the deed of assignment dated 8th June, 1970, M/s.Yashdhir Hotels Pvt. Ltd. became the lessee of the said land for the unexpired period of the lease and became a tenant under the respondent Nos. 1 to 4. The lease rent was initially fixed at Rs. 3,215/- per month, but was thereafter increased to Rs. 3,450/- per month. As M/s. Yashdhir Hotels Pvt. Ltd. defaulted in payment of rent for more than six months, the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 issued a notice dated 1st February, 1983 to M/s. Yashdhir Hotels Pvt. Ltd. It appears that on receipt of the notice, M/s. Yashdhir Hotels Pvt. Ltd. tendered rent to the lessors for a period of fourteen months but the same was refused as the same did not constitute the entire arrears of rent payable by the lessees. It was also the claim of the lessors that the lessee had unlawfully sublet the demised property.
(3.)Having refused to accept the rent for fourteen months tendered by the lessee, the lessors filed a suit, being R.A.E.No. 732/2538/1983, claiming possession on the ground that the lessee had defaulted in payment of the rents. Apart from the lessee, certain other parties were made defendants in the suit on the allegation that the suit property had been sublet by the lessee in their favour. The defendants filed their written statements and while admitting that M/s.Yashdhir Hotels Pvt. Ltd. had become the tenant of the leasehold premises by virtue of the deed of assignment, denied that the lessee was in arrears of rent as alleged. According to the defendants, the lease rent, which was initially fixed at Rs. 3,215/- per month and was thereafter enhanced to Rs. 3,450/- per month, was payable after every six months and not monthly as claimed by the lessors. It was also contended that although the rent had been tendered by cheque along with a letter dated 23rd April, 1983, the same had been wrongly refused by the lessors. It was also contended that since the period of lease was 98 years which was still subsisting, and there was no breach of any of the terms and conditions of the lease, the lessors were not entitled to get possession of the suit property. It was the specific case of the defendant Nos. 2 to 5 that under the deed of lease, the lessee was entitled to let out the structure erected on the leasehold property or any part thereof.


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