Mumbai: Bombay High Court refused to interfere with an order of the small causes appellate court that directed K Rustom, the iconic ice-cream parlour run since 1937 at Churchgate, to deposit in court an interim monthly compensation of Rs 2.5 lakh pending the hearing of its appeal against an order to vacate and surrender its premises to the Cricket Club of India.
“The amount of interim compensation of Rs 2,50,000 cannot be considered so meagre as to warrant interference by this court in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,” said Justice Sandeep Marne on Dec 16.
In April 2022, the small causes court directed K Rustom & Company to hand over shop number 6—approximately 3,070 square feet with a 950-sq-ft mezzanine floor—at the North Stand building of Brabourne Stadium to CCI within two months. On Rustom’s appeal, in June 2022, the appellate bench stayed the order and directed Rs 2.5 lakh monthly ad hoc compensation. In Feb 2023, it confirmed the amount.
Aggrieved by the quantum of interim compensation, CCI moved HC to quash and set aside the Feb 2023 order and direct Rustom to pay an amount as would be decided by HC. Its petition said the order suffers from “non-application of judicious mind” and with a casual approach confirmed the amount in spite of CCI submitting instances of rents paid by stores in the vicinity.
Advocate Vivek Kantawala for CCI urged the matter be remanded for fresh consideration of interim compensation taking into account the instances produced. Senior advocate Girish Godbole, for Rustom, said considering that it is an old shop under a stadium, the appellate court felt Rs 2.5 lakh was reasonable. It is a discretionary order.
Justice Marne, in the order, noted that CCI’s suit was decreed on the solitary ground of its bona fide requirement. Rustom’s appeal has been pending since 2022. He then said the interim compensation cannot be considered meagre. Justice Marne said instead the appellate court can be requested to expedite the hearing of the appeal rather than remanding the matter for fresh consideration of interim compensation.
“The appellate court is requested to expedite the hearing of the appeal,” he directed, and disposed of CCI’s petition.
