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

2024 Supreme(Bom) 1067

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
PTB Hospitality LLP and Others – Appellants
Versus
Jayanti Danabhai Patel and Others – Respondents
Writ Petition No. 14685 of 2022
Decided On : 30-07-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : R.B. Huded, M.V. Chavan
For the Respondent: Jaydeep Deo

The court affirmed that under Order XV-A, defendants must deposit license fees during the pendency of the suit, regardless of whether the suit explicitly claims such fees.

Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order XV-A - Provincial Small Causes Courts Act, 1887 - License fees - Defendants directed to deposit arrears of license fees amounting to Rs. 1,34,37,986/- for the period from 1 March 2019 to 31 March 2022, and Rs. 6,98,097.70/- monthly thereafter - Plaintiffs claim non-payment of license fees and breach of License Agreement - Court held that jurisdiction under Order XV-A applies even if the suit does not explicitly seek recovery of license fees - Defendants must deposit license fees during the pendency of the suit. (Paras 1, 6, 29, 31)

(B) Jurisdiction - The Court has jurisdiction to direct deposit of arrears of rent/license fees in every suit filed for eviction, regardless of whether the suit contains a prayer for recovery of such fees. (Paras 20, 29)

(C) Interim Relief - Interim relief can be granted under Order XV-A even if the suit does not contain a specific prayer for recovery of license fees, as long as the claim is substantiated in the pleadings. (Paras 22, 29)

Facts of the case:
The Plaintiffs, owners of a restaurant premises, executed a Leave & License Agreement with the Defendants, who failed to pay license fees since March 2019, leading to a suit for recovery of possession and damages.

Findings of Court:
The Small Causes Court's order directing the Defendants to deposit license fees was upheld, with a modification to set the monthly deposit at Rs. 3,00,000/-.

Issues: The main issues included the applicability of Order XV-A to the suit and whether the Defendants were liable to deposit license fees during the pendency of the suit.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court ruled that Order XV-A applies to suits for eviction regardless of whether a claim for license fees is explicitly made, emphasizing the need for tenants to pay for occupation during litigation.

Result: Writ Petition partly succeeds; Defendants must deposit Rs. 3,00,000/- monthly as license fees.

JUDGMENT :

SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.

1. Petitioners/Defendants have filed this petition challenging the order dated 11 October 2022 passed by the 3rd Additional Judge, Small Causes Court, Pune allowing application filed by the Plaintiffs/Respondents at Exhibit-56 and directing Defendants to deposit arrears of license fees under the provisions of Order XV-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Code). The Small Causes Court has directed the Defendants to deposit arrears of license fees of Rs. 1,34,37,986/- for the period from 1 March 2019 to 31 March 2022. The Court has further directed the Defendants to deposit arrears of license fees @ Rs.6,98,097.70/- per month for the period from 1 April 2022 to 31 October 2022. The Defendants are further directed to deposit license fees @ Rs.6,98,097.70/- on the 10th day of each subsequent months after 1 November 2022 till the Defendants remain in occupation of the suit premises.

2. Restaurant admeasuring built-up area of 220 sq.mtrs. and open space of 1452 sq.mtrs at Survey No. 241/1A, Wakad, Taluka-Haveli, District-Pune are the suit premises. Plaintiffs claim to be the owners of the suit premises and executed Leave & License Agreement with the Defendants on 11 November 2016, under which the license in respect of the suit premises was granted in favour of Defendants for the period from 1 January 2017 to 31 December 2021 at license fees of Rs.2,87,163.35/- payable for first year, Rs. 3,01,521.51/- for second year, Rs. 3,16,597.59/- for third year, Rs. 3,32,427.47/- for fourth year and Rs. 3,49,048.85/- for the fifth year.

3. According to Plaintiff, Defendants were irregular and reluctant in paying the license fees after June 2018 and some of the cheques towards the license fees were dishonoured. That in respect of the delay in payment of license fees, penal interest was not paid by them. After May 2019, Defendants stopped paying license fees which was Rs.3,16,597.59/- per month. According to Plaintiffs, Defendants also made changes in the constitution of the firm by inducting new persons as its partners and obtained license fees from them under the head of remuneration. The Defendants sublet the suit premises to Mr. Rushikesh Pawar, Akash Pardeshi and Manish Nair by accepting exorbitant security deposit and license fees from them. However, due to disputes between the Defendants and such subletees, Cancellation Deed was executed. That Defendants had procured grocery items and other restaurant material on credit without paying charges on account of which some criminal proceedings were initiated against them. That Plaintiffs were advanced loan by Kotak Mahindra Bank requiring payment of EMI of Rs.4,00,000/- and on account of defaults committed by defendants, financial planning of the Plaintiffs was disturbed. That Defendants failed to renew license of Restaurant and Bar after 1 April 2019 by paying license fees to the concerned Departments.

4. It is averred in the Plaint that Plaintiffs sent Notice dated 31 July 2018 to Defendants demanding payment of license fees regularly and warning them not to create third party interest. Another notice dated 27 February 2019 was sent by Plaintiffs terminating the Leave & License Agreement w.e.f. 1 March 2019 and seeking possession of the suit premises. That Defendants gave reply dated 5 April 2019 to the said notice. Plaintiffs therefore instituted Civil Suit No. 192/2019 against Defendants seeking recovery of possession of the suit property as well as recovery of damages at the rate of double the amount of license fees from 1 March 2019 and for various other related prayers.

5. Defendants appeared in the suit and filed Written Statement denying the contents of the Plaint and contended that no notice of termination of Leave & License Agreement was served on PTB Hospitality LLP and that therefore the Leave & License Agreement was valid and subsisting. Defendants also disputed the liability of partners in respect of the License Agreement executed with PTB Hospitality

    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