Mumbai: Iconic Rustom ice cream parlour told to vacate CCI-owned premises in 2 months

At the small causes court, CCI had submitted that they were landlords of the said property under the Bombay Rent Act. It was submitted that the club requires the premises for its activities. It said that the list of the club’s members has gone up substantially in the last 14 years and it needs more space to meet the growing requirement of the members. It said that it wants to start a coffee shop at the suit premises for its members as the current one at CCI is insufficient.

The CCI also submitted that a substantial portion of the premises were not in use by Rustom. CCI claimed that it was being paid a monthly rent of Rs 527 per month, ‘far below the standard rent’. Rustom contended that this is an “incredible” statement as it does not mention the payment of electricity and water charges. It was also submitted that Rustom has been a tenant of the suit premises prior to the declaration of the Second World War “when premises were freely available” in Mumbai. Rustom also denied that a portion of the premises is not in use and said that both the ice-cream shop and a shop selling readymade clothes were working full time. It also said that it has no other premises to do business and will be out on the streets if asked to evict the premises.

“It is already held that the plaintiffs (CCI) have proved that the suit premises are reasonably and bonafide required by the plaintiffs for their personal use for club activities and no hardship will be caused to the defendants (Rustom) if the decree of ejectment is passed in favour of the plaintiffs therefore, they are entitled to recover quit, vacant and peaceful possession of the suit premises,” Judge S B Todkar, Court of Small Causes, said in the order.

The court also said that while Rustom had said that it had made enquiries for other premises but could not find due to scarcity and escalating prices, no evidence was submitted that they had looked for an alternative premises and not found any. The court also said that it cannot direct the landlord to do a particular business or his requirement need not be a dire necessity.

“Similarly, the length of tenancy of the defendants in the circumstances of the case ought not to be weighed. From this evidence it appears that the plaintiffs have proved that they require the suit premises reasonably and bonafide for their personal use for the club activities,” the court said.