INDIAN HOTEL CO LTD Vs. T STEVENSON

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present chamber summons is taken out by the defendant for a relief from an undertaking given to this Court contained in the consent terms which disposed of the suit.

(2.) On 28th Mar., 1941, the plaintiff who owns the Taj Mahal Hotel in Bombay, entered into lease and hire agreement in writing, registered, with Jacques M. Stevenson in respect of a premises admeasuring about 2,375 sq. It. The plaintiff was running a hair dressing saloon in the said premises and Jacques Sievenson was to do the same business, The lease was renewed twice, once on 22nd Feb., 1943, and again on 5th March 1946, The defendant joined Jacques M. Stevenson as a partner on 15th Mar., 1944, and then took an assignment of the right, title and interest of Jacques M. Stevenson on 19th Sep., 1947, There were further registered renewals of lease on 17th Mar., 1949, 1st April, 1952 and 12th Feb., 1955, A portion of the said premises was surrendered on 4th July, 1952, with a consequent reduction in the rent. On 9th June, 1958, an agreement was signed between the plaintiff and the defendant with some changes in the terms from those in the previous agreements. According to the defendant. This agreement was surreptitiously and fraudulently got signed by the plaintiff from the defendant on a representation that the terms and conditions were the same as in previous agreements. In Sept., 1958, the defendant got the agreement scrutinized and discovered these changes. From about this time the disputes started between the plaintiff and the defendant 1982 Bom./41 IV G-19 resulting in this suit being filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for possession in which the defendant filed her written statement. Ultimately, the suit reached hearing on 19th Apr., 1969, before Nain J. Consent Terms were arrived at between the plaintiff and the defendant and a decree was obtained in terms thereof. The relevant terms thereof are as follows:

(3.) The Bombay Rents Hotel & Lodging. House Rates (Control) Act, 1947, was amended by the Amending Act SVII of 1973, by which certain rights were conferred on the licensees which till then were not available to them provided the licensees were in possession of the premises under a subsisting agreement on 1st Feb. 1973. After the commencement of the Amending Act, according to the plaintiff, the defendant by her advocates letter dated 1st April, 1975, exercised here option to renew the license but the defendant denies any exercise of option by her and denies authority of the advocate to execs such an option and alleges a collusion between the plaintiff and the advocate, Mr. Changla has stated that for the purpose of this application he does not prove the authority of the advocate. He earlier acted for the defendant and says that he will only rely on the affidavits filed.