CCI vs Rustom: Landlord’s bona fide need carries day

Mumbai: K

Rustom

& Co, the iconic Churchgate ice-cream parlour, was using only one of the four galas rented to make and sell ice-cream, the Cricket Club of India (CCI) said in its suit seeking its eviction. On the other hand, with the number of members growing,

CCI

needed that space to expand its coffee shop, Poolside Glance, enhance sports and recreational activities and also provide banquet facilities. In the small causes court, Rustom argued the CCI’s need was no bona fide. It said it could ill-afford not to use the whole premises as it paid large amounts towards electricity, water charges, telephone and other outgoing. It pointed out it had been a tenant ever since the building was constructed. “This was prior to the declaration of the Second World War, when premises were freely available in Mumbai,’’ it added.Judge

S B Todkar

said Rustom had failed to prove CCI’s need is not bona fide. He agreed with CCI’s advocates Anand Gandhi and

Vivek Kantawala

that it is settled law that bona fide necessity of the landlord has to be considered. “The landlord has the right to decide which premises are suitable for the business he wants to start. Similarly, length of tenancy of the defendants ought not to be weighed,” he said.CCI had said Rustom would not suffer loss if ejected. Also, any hardship can be mitigated “by reasonable compensation to the partners who are senior citizens and more or less retired from the active business”. Rustom countered that being a family firm, “it will be a great blow to the acquired goodwill and reputation... and they will be thrown on the streets”. Its partners are “working full time in the business, are healthy and capable of working for many more years”.Rustom added it had been carrying on the business of ice-cream, eatables and readymade garments for long. But the judge said Rustom did not lead evidence “to show they were doing various activities on the premises”. Partner Rodabe Irani’s evidence showed it was doing its ice-cream business “only in part of the suit premises”.Rustom’s plea that it could not find any other premises in the locality due to scarcity and escalating prices fell through. Rustom did not show at any time during the long-drawn litigation that it tried to find alternative accommodation but were unable to get it, said the judge. “Therefore, considering the above facts and circumstances, if (ejectment) decree is refused to be passed, the plaintiffs (CCI) would suffer greater hardship,” he concluded.