LAWS(DLH)-2021-9-14

ALOK KUMAR LODHA Vs. ASIAN HOTELS (NORTH) LTD.

Decided On September 15, 2021
Alok Kumar Lodha Appellant
V/S
Asian Hotels (North) Ltd. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IA No.5173/2021 is filed by the plaintiff under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC seeking impleadment of necessary and proper parties as defendants. IA No.5174/2021 is field by the plaintiff under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for amendment of the plaint.

(2.) The present suit is filed by the plaintiff seeking a decree of declaration that the licence in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the shop/premises bearing No.L-83, Hotel Hayatt Regency Delhi, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi is irrevocable and perpetual and the purported revocation of the license by the defendant is illegal, void and bad in the eyes of law. A decree is also sought for declaration declaring that the plaintiff has unfettered right to occupy and use the said premises/shop under the irrevocable license till the documents of transfer/conveyance are executed by the defendant. Other connected reliefs are also sought.

(3.) It is the case of the plaintiff that as part of the Asian Games, the Hyatt Hotel was launched subsequent to allotment of land under a lease deed dated 22.07.1982 by DDA. It was a part of an initiative to create 5-star iconic property with high end hospitality. It is the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff through the original allottee paid a total sum of Rs.8.47 lakhs to the defendant in 1991 which was received as security deposit for the said shop/premises L-83. It is stated that the said amount was substantially higher than the then prevailing value of the shop. On 02.09.1991, a license agreement was executed by the plaintiff and the defendant company that regulated the terms of occupation of the plaintiff for the shop in question situated in the defendant hotel. The agreement was to be renewed periodically every five years. It is the case of the plaintiff that under the agreement valuable consideration was transferred being Rs.8.47 lakhs which was paid for the subject shop. There was no further additional payment or premium payable by the plaintiff. It is stated that the interest in the property was perpetual, permanent and irrevocable in law.