In High Court

The petitioners had claimed that BMC had been extending their lease for years as they have been running the restaurant for the past 50 years. Moves to take the land back were first initiated in 1971 when the BMC tried to make the hotel vacate the land so it could build a subsidiary control centre for a water reservoir. The party had then moved the city civil courts through a suit which had been rejected.

Cafe Naaz had then moved the Supreme Court directly praying to restrain the BMC and given an undertaking that if the BMC were to ever need the land for the construction of the water reservoir, it would hand over the land.For the next 11 years the BMC made no move to repossess the land. In 1996 the party moved the Bombay High Court torestrain the BMC once more. This appeal was also rejected by Justice P S Patankar who held that since the undertaking had been given to the Supreme Court, they had no case.

In March 1997, BMC had accepted lease rent for the place till the year 2000. However, on July 23rd, BMC officials entered the premises and started demolishing the structure.The petitioners claimed that BMC officials asked that the land be handed over to them along with the building. It was the case of the petitioners that they had a lease only over the land and not on the building.

They also argued that the hotel was the only one in the area and a landmark to boot. Also, BMC did not need that plot for a control tower since a tower had already been constructed near the Hanging Garden post-office.However, Justice Shah noted that since the hotel had given an undertaking in the SC earlier, there was no merit in their petition and rejected it.

Petition on bar girls disposed of

n A division bench of Justice M B Ghodeswar andJustice B N Srikrishna today disposed of a petition filed by Indian Hotels and Restaurants Association challenging Section 33 3 of the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act, 1948 that prevented women from working in these establishments after 8.30 pm.

Individual restaurants and bars would apply have to apply for exemption in the time limit to the state government. The state would then consider them on a case to case basis and take a decision within two months of the applications.

AHAR and the Maharashtra Bar Girls Association had sought relief from the section praying that it was interfering with the constitutional right to equal work opportunities granted to women. Counsel for the petitioners, Rajni Iyer hotly debated the contention and pointed out that this was discrimination since women are allowed to work in five-star hotels beyond the stipulated time.