SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1984 Supreme(Bom) 160

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
V.V. Vaze, J.
Quality Cur-Pieces.... Appellants.
Versus
M. Laxmi Co. .... Respondents.
First Appeal Nos. 631, 641 to 679 of 1972, with First Appeals Nos. 186 to 188 of 1973, decided on 19/21/23/24/25/26-4-1984.
Advocates appeared :
R.T. Walawalkar with D.K. Ghaisas, for appellants in all appeals.
M.A. Rane with K.T. Varghese, for respondents in all appeals.

Headnote:

The Court held that the agreements between the departmental store (DSS) and the stall-holders were license agreements, not lease agreements, and that the stall-holders were therefore not tenants. The Court found that the stall-holders did not have exclusive possession of their stalls, that they were required to seek permission from the management to change the hours of business or effect a change of merchandise, that their interest in the stalls was not assignable, and that they had repeatedly recognized the agreements to pay a fixed percentage of commission to DSS, Ramniklal, and Laxmi. The Court also found that the stall-holders had acquiesced in their status as licensees for over 20 years, and that they were estopped from challenging Laxmi's title to the suit premises.

Fact of the Case:

DSS, a departmental store, leased a property from Ashar for a term of 10 years with an option for renewal for a further period of 10 years. DSS constructed a building and furnished it with furniture and fittings. DSS then entered into agreements with various merchants, allowing them to stock, display, and sell their goods in the stalls within the store. The merchants were required to pay DSS a commission on their sales. DSS defaulted on its rent payments to Ashar and was forced to mortgage the property to Shah Brothers. Shah Brothers eventually sold the property to Ramniklal, who in turn sold it to Laxmi. The stall-holders filed suit against Laxmi, claiming that they were tenants and not licensees, and that they were therefore entitled to protection under the Rent Control Act. Laxmi counterclaimed for damages for use and occupation of the stalls.

Finding of the Court:

The Court found that the agreements between DSS and the stall-holders were license agreements, not lease agreements, and that the stall-holders were therefore not tenants. The Court found that the stall-holders did not have exclusive possession of their stalls, that they were required to seek permission from the management to change the hours of business or effect a change of merchandise, that their interest in the stalls was not assignable, and that they had repeatedly recognized the agreements to pay a fixed percentage of commission to DSS, Ramniklal, and Laxmi. The Court also found that the stall-holders had acquiesced in their status as licensees for over 20 years, and that they were estopped from challenging Laxmi's title to the suit premises.

Issues: 1. Whether the agreements between DSS and the stall-holders were lease agreements or license agreements? 2. Whether the stall-holders were tenants or licensees? 3. Whether the stall-holders were entitled to protection under the Rent Control Act? 4. Whether Laxmi was entitled to damages for use and occupation of the stalls?

Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the agreements between DSS and the stall-holders were license agreements, not lease agreements, and that the stall-holders were therefore not tenants. The Court found that the stall-holders did not have exclusive possession of their stalls, that they were required to seek permission from the management to change the hours of business or effect a change of merchandise, that their interest in the stalls was not assignable, and that they had repeatedly recognized the agreements to pay a fixed percentage of commission to DSS, Ramniklal, and Laxmi. The Court also found that the stall-holders had acquiesced in their status as licensees for over 20 years, and that they were estopped from challenging Laxmi's title to the suit premises.

Final Decision: The Court dismissed the stall-holders' suits and granted Laxmi's counterclaim for damages for use and occupation of the stalls.

Judgment

V.V. VAZE, J.:---Summer of 42. The city of Bombay was slowly recovering from the erosion of war economy. Serpentine queues for essential commodities were seen every where The mighty arch of yellow basalt hautily thrusting its frame above the promontory lapped by the waters of Bay of Bombay had witnessed the entry of many an Englishman-administrators, Governors-General, dashing blades or humble quill drivers-coming to India to keep Pax Britannica. That very arch was soon to serve as their exist.

DSS Incorporated

2. A group of seven businessmen drawn from various fields like pharmaceuticals, textiles, tea, banking and insurance got together and surveyed the Indian economic scene. They had a vision of a possible co-operation of Indian and foreign entrepreneurs in the field of supply of essential commodities for civilian consumption-something which was very much relegated to the background by the more pressing need to keep the sinews of war flowing. They envisaged a free-flow of goods and merchandise once the sea routes became open; took note of the fact that manufacturers in western countries had at their disposal large departmental chain stores to handle goods direct from the factory to the consumer and managed country-wide distribution system. This group regretted the absence of a similar large-scale departmental store in India and decided to remedy the defect and build up a co-ordinated contract between the producer and consumer. With this object in view, the group incorporated a company "Departmental Service Stores Limited." ("DSS").

3. The Company could not function in view of the prohibition regarding the issue of shares under Rule 94-A of the Defence of Indian Rules, without the sanction of the Examiner of Capital issues. This sanction was granted on 15th November, 1983 authorising the company to raise capital of the value of Rs. 1,62,000/- under certain conditions. The hurdle of the Defence of India Rule was crossed and capital was raised. Having realised the capital by allotting shares to those who had applied before 17th May, 1943, the company had money but no premises wherein to start the contemplated departmental stores. The Company was all dressed up but had nowhere to go. On 8th September, 1944 the company, acquired the house of Messrs. Dinshaw and Company. Colaba, Causeway, Bombay, from one Behram Rustom Irano, after paying Rs. 47,000/- out of which Rs. 4,000/- were towards the goodwill and the remainder towards the price of goods, electrical installations type writers etc. A store was started in the premises of Dinshaw and Co. for the 10 months ending 30th June, 1945, DSS made a modest profit of Rs. 6,405-2-11 Ps.

4. The Examiner of Capital Issues permitted the Company to issue further shares of capital of the value of Rs. 8,30,000/-. The signatories to the Memorandum and Articles of Association, the Directors, Managing Agents and their friends agreed to take a bulk of the new issue and remainder as offered for public subscription. Masers. Bagman Traders Ltd. of 41, Bruce Street, Fort, Bombay, were the Managing Agents of the company and Bagayatkar and Manjrekar of Bombay were ex officio Directors nominated by the Managing Agents. The prospectus issued by the company inviting subscription from the public, after taking a note of the possible increase in international trade on account of the opening of free sea routes, announced that the DSS will inaugurate a new era of "shop as you please" under one roof and thereby obviate the necessity of standing in long queues and hunting for different goods and shops situated in far-flung localities. The ambitious prospectus projected a picture of a store where a person can buy all his needs "from a pin to a piano" and that too with home delivery facilities. Twelve Departments were enumerated as being the ones which would be immediately opened in the stores and it was indicated that the DSS would further diversify their activities into thirty more Departments ranging from















































































































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top