HOTEL UDIPI WOODLANDS Vs. COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) COMMON Order the revision petitioner/petitioner/plaintiff has filed these two revisions as against the orders dated 10. 09. 2008 in C. M. A. Nos. 24 and 25 of 2008 passed by the learned V Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai in dismissing the appeals filed by the revision petitioner/ plaintiff.

(2.) THE learned V Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, while passing orders in C. M. A. Nos. 24 and 25 of 2008, has inter alia opined that 'but our case in hand is entirely different with the facts of the case as the appellant seeks/reliefs only mainly against the first and second respondents to issue trade licence and against the third respondent claiming right over the agreement entered into between the third respondent and by the appellants as tenant and lease partnership etc. and even though, which are to be decided finally in the respective suits after trial as far as the relief against the first and second respondents is concerned as the business involves public interest regarding safety, sanitary and health etc. it would be impossible to run eating house or hotel without the trade licence appropriately obtained and against public policy and in those circumstances, the ruling relied on by the appellant cannot be taken into consideration as applicable for this case in hand and that there would be no prejudice would be caused to the third respondent as well as the first and second respondent than the petitioner if the interim reliefs are granted now and hence, these civil miscellaneous appeals are liable to be dismissed on merits and the trial Court orders in I. A. Nos. 13943 and 16481 of 2007 are to be confirmed and accordingly confirmed'.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the revision petitioner urges before this Court that the trial Court has miserably failed to see that there was landlord and tenant relationship between the third respondent and partners of the petitioner for the reason that out of total amount of Rs. 20,000/- being paid to the third respondent, Rs. 9,000/- alone was fixed as fee for using the licence for running the hotel and the balance amount was adjusted towards the rent of the building which is unwritten as there was oral agreement in respect to the tenancy and further that the above written and unwritten arrangement between the partners of the petitioner hotel and the third respondent has been reflected in the petitioner's bank account in A/c. No. 1521 maintained in Canara Bank, Saidapet at that a sum of Rs. 9,000/- alone was reflected as the petitioner issuing cheque for only Rs. 9,000/- towards licence fee for running the hotel and the balance amount paid in cash towards rent for the building and these aspects have not been looked into by the trial Court in a proper perspective and Income Tax return for Assessment Years 2003-2004, 2004-2005 and 2005-2006 filed by the third respondent show that there was a rental income of Rs. 1,44,000/- in the suit properties and that the 30 exhibits on the side of revision petitioner to substantiate their case have not been considered by the trial Court and therefore, prays for allowing the revision petitions in the interest of justice.