SANDEEP V. MARNE
PTB Hospitality LLP – Appellant
Versus
Jayanti Danabhai Patel – Respondent
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 Defend
Krishna Priya Ganguly & Ors. Vs. University of Lucknow and Ors. AIR 1984 SC 186
Malpe Vishwanath Acharya and Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and Anr. 1998 AIR (SCW) 202
Omprakash and Others Vs. Ram Kumar and Others
State of Orissa Vs. Madan Gopal Rungta
Uberoisons (Machines) Ltd. Vs. Samtel Colour Ltd. 2003 (69) DRJ 523
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.
Judgment under Order VIII Rule 10 should not be passed without requiring the plaintiff to prove the facts pleaded in the plaint, and disputed questions of fact warrant a trial rather than a summary j....
A tenant must deposit all arrears of rent, including time-barred amounts, to claim protection from eviction under Section 15(3) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act.
A counter-claim related to a licensee's possession falls under the jurisdiction of the relevant authority, not a civil court, as it necessitates a substantive evaluation of the agreement's terms.
Failure to comply with court orders and pay dues justifies striking off the defense under Order 15 Rule 5 of the CPC.
The main legal point established is that the defendant must comply with the provisions of Order XV Rule 5 of the C.P.C. and pay the admitted rent at the first hearing and the monthly amount due throu....
A suit seeking declaration of tenancy rights without a claim for possession is barred under Section 144(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, as it indirectly seeks restitution already denied.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the liability of the defendant to hand over possession and pay outstanding dues due to default in payment as per the sub-license agreement.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.