According to reports, last week a small causes court in Mumbai ordered the city's revered ice-cream parlour in Churchgate, K Rustom and Company, to vacate its premises part of the Brabourne Stadium in the North Stand Building in two months.
Based on accounts, the decision came from a suit filed by the Cricket Club of India (CCI) in 1996, who are the owners and landlords of the premises in dispute.
The ice-cream shop which is over eight decades old is operated by the Rustom family and is a favourite amongst locals and tourists akin. It has been reported that the family will be filing an appeal against the order. The disputed property is 3,070 square feet and has a mezzanine floor of 950 square feet.
Narratives highlight that in the small causes court, the CCI had submitted that they were the property's landlord. They submitted that they needed the premises for its activities. It added that the club's members had risen considerably in the past 14 years, thus it needs more area. They look to start a coffee shop in the disputed premises for its members because the current area is insufficient.
In addition to this, the CCI submitted that a considerable area of the premises was not used by Rustom. It claimed that it was paid a mere INR 527 per month as rent which it believes is under the standard rent. To this, Rustom rebuked that the statement doesn't highlight that electricity and water charges payment.
Rustom reportedly elaborated on how it has been the premise's tenant since before the Second World War declaration during which areas were freely available in the city. It then went on to deny that the premise's portion is not used by them by elucidating how the ice-cream shop and the shop selling clothes were operating full-time. It claimed that it has no other area to operate a business, accounts cited.
In the order, the judge remarked that the CCI has proven that the premises is bonafide needed for club activities and "no hardship" will be caused to Rustom if the ejectment is passed, thus the earlier are entitled to the premises. Further, it uttered that Rustom had not submitted any evidence that it sought alternative premises and did not find any, narratives mentioned.
The court opined that it couldn't direct the landlord to undertake a particular business. The judiciary believes that CCI has proved it needs the premises reasonably.
Also Read: Mumbai: 42-Year-Old Becomes First Women Driver For BEST - Here's All You Need To Know
Share
Tweet
