Allowed

Shailaja Purushottam Hegde v. Sushila Raghu Shetty and 7 Ors.

Bombay HC21 Jul 2010WP/1199/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition allowed. Court directed authorities to renew or issue fresh licence for Hotel Anugraha in favour of petitioner, subject to clarification that no equity arises from interim standing orders in pending suits.

What did the court decide?

Respondent Nos. 3 to 7 directed to renew existing licence or issue fresh licence for Hotel Anugraha in favour of petitioner.

Shailaja Purushottam Hegde Vs Sushila Raghu Shetty and 7… — Landlord and Tenant | Bombay HC (2010)

¶1

W.P.1199-10

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1199 OF 2010

¶4

Shailaja Purushottam Hegde .. Petitioner Versus Shushila Raghu Shetty .. Respondent

¶5

Mr.Rakesh Kumar i/b. V.S.Jabra for petitioner Mr.R.U.Singh i/b. Rohit Shetty for respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

¶6

CORAM : MOHIT S. SHAH, C.J. & S.C.Dharmadhikari, J. Date : 21^st July 2010.

¶7

P.C.

¶8

1] One Raghu Shetty was carrying on business of running a restaurant in and from the premises being Shop Nos. 5 and 6, along with godown

¶9

on the ground floor of “A” Building, Sarvodaya Bhuvan, Gokhale Road

¶10

(North), Dadar (West), Mumbai 400 028 in the name and style of Hotel Anugraha. Upon the death of Mr.Raghu Shetty, dispute has arisen between his two daughters being the petitioner Shailaja Purushottam Hegde on the one hand and Mrs.Pramila Balkrishna Shetty as well as

¶11

their mother, Sushila Raghu Shetty. Civil Suits are pending between

¶12

W.P.1199-10

¶13

¶14

parties in respect tenancy rights in the above premises and also about the claim to run the hotel business.

¶15

2] The petitioner’s grievance in this petition is that despite the fact that in the above suits, interlocutory orders are passed in favour of the petitioner under which the petitioner is allowed to run the business and respondent Nos. 1 and 2 i.e. Mother and sister of petitioner are restrained from interfering with the petitioner from carrying on the said business. However, there are some objections raised by the respondents with the Corporation and State Authorities regarding the hotel business. The petitioner is, therefore, not able to get renewal of the licence from the Corporation and other State Authorities such as Assistant Commissioner of Police – respondent No.7.

¶16

3] It is also the case of the petitioner that while for the petitioner and her husband there is no other source of income except running the above hotel in the said premises and that the petitioner’s husband had shifted to the above premises in order to assist his deceased father in law i.e. father

¶17

W.P.1199-10

¶18

¶19

of petitioner, whereas, husband of respondent No.2 has his own business

¶20

and he is running two hotels at some other place and respondent No.2 has a right in them. It is, therefore, submitted that non-renewal of the licences in favour of the petitioner causes tremendous hardship and prejudice to the petitioner.

¶21

4] On the other hand, learned Counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 submits that though respondent No.2 has a right in the hotel business run by her husband, it has not been inherited from her father Raghu Shetty. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are entitled to carry on business in the premises in question.

¶22

5] Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties and having regard to the interlocutory orders passed by the Small Causes Court dated 4^th April 2009 (Exh.”O”) and this Court in Notice of Motion No.2381 of 2009 in Suit No.1693 of 2000 dated 14^th August 2009 (Ext.P) under which the petitioner is permitted to run the business from the above premises subject to the condition that the petitioner pays a sum of Rs.

¶23

W.P.1199-10

¶24

¶25

10,000/- per month to the respondent No.1, (mother of the petitioner and respondent No.2), we are of the view that the respondent authorities are required to be directed to renew the licence or to issue fresh licence in favour of the petitioner, without prejudice to the rights and contentions of parties and with a clarification that this order shall not create any equity in favour of the petitioner.

¶26

6] Accordingly, this petition is allowed and respondent Nos. 3 to 7 are directed to renew the existing licence/ issue fresh licence in respect of the business being run in the name and style of Hotel Anugraha at the address mentioned above in favour of the petitioner without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties with a clarification that no equity shall be created in favour of the petitioner on account of passing of this order or on account of issuance of the licence or renewal of the same.

¶27

(CHIEF JUSTICE)

¶28

(S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J)

Shailaja Purushottam Hegde v. Sushila Raghu Shetty and 7 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shailaja Purushottam Hegde v. Sushila Raghu Shetty and 7 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mahesh Jaykumar Upadhye Vs President, People Education Society and Others

Phulavati Tulsiram Indalkar and Ors. Vs Ganpat Rau Indalkar and Ors.

Sanjay Ratadiya and Anr. Vs Oriental Bank of Commerce and 2 Ors.

New Education Society and Ors. Vs Usha Bapuso Rade and Ors.

Tarachand Dalchand Jain Vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and 3 Ors.

M/S. Economic Commercial Service Vs Union of India and Anr.