FASHION N GEMS REP BY ITS PARTNER K M SALEEM Vs. PLACAB AND AGENCIES PARIVATE LTD , REP BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR P V JOHN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The tenant is the revision petitioner in this Civil Revision Petition challenging the order of the eviction on the ground of additional accommodation and willful default. It is the case of the respondent /land lord that they are running a hotel in name and style of "Hotel Ranjith" in the petition premise. The revision petitioners' partnership firm namely M/s. Fashion 'N' Gems entered into an agreement of license with the respondent herein, to take on license a portion in the southern corner in ground floor of about 550 Sq.ft in "Hotel Ranjith" building. The said agreement of license was dated 15.07.1975 and the monthly license fee was arrived at Rs.1,000/- and for amenities Rs.250/- per month. The said license was continued till 1985 and it was renewed by another agreement dated 01.08.1985. It was agreed by both parties in the said agreement that the revision petitioners will have to pay a daily license of Rs.51/- per day to the respondent/land lord and the petitioner also agreed to pay 5% of gross sales turnover of all articles as share of profit for Rs.15,000/- invested towards the furnishing of the portion leased out to the tenant.

(2.) Thereafter on 17.10.1990 the revision petitioners/tenants entered into lease deed with the landlord wherein it is agreed to pay a sum of Rs.6,000/- per month as monthly rent and amenities charge. But after that the tenant was not regular in payment of rent and he paid rent in installments at his convenience in meager amounts. As on 31.03.1995 the rent of arrears remained Rs.88,390/-. Further he has not paid the rent for the period from April 1995 to March 1996, thereby the balance rental arrears accumulated to Rs.1,67,590/-. After repeated request and demand made by the landlord, the tenant paid Rs.1,00,000/- on 20.03.1997. The balance rental arrears due by the revision petitioner as on 31.01.1999 is Rs.1,34,400/-. Thus the tenant had committed willful default in not paying the rent for 15 months commencing from November 1997 to January 1999.

(3.) As stated above, in the hotel run by the respondent herein, the revision petitioner was given a portion of 550 Sq. ft on lease as early as 1975. At that time the respondent herein did not required the entire area and therefore he offered some place for the use of the revision petitioners to exhibit the articles for sale. Now the respondent herein wanted the above said portion which is in occupation of the revision petitioners as additional accommodation for expansion of his hotel business. Hence the respondent herein filed eviction petition against the revision petitioners on the ground of Willful Default and Additional Accommodation.