Mumbai: Iconic Rustom ice-cream parlour told to vacate CCI building after losing suit

MUMBAI: K Rustom & Co, the over 80-year-old iconic ice-cream parlour at Churchgate, has been ordered to vacate its premises in the Cricket Club of India (CCI) building after losing an almost 26-year-old suit.
The small causes court on April 30 directed Rustom “to hand over quiet, vacant and peaceful possession” of its premises—shop no 6 spread over about 3,070 sq ft and a mezzanine floor of 950 sq ft on the ground floor of the North Stand Building at Brabourne Stadium—to CCI within two months.Rustom’s advocate Rita Bhatia told TOI: “We are going to appeal before the appellate bench.”

CCI had moved court in 1996 seeking to evict Rustom, to whom it had let out the premises in 1939 to run an ice-cream parlour, for expansion of club facilities. There were two main issues: whether CCI bona fide needed the premises for its activities and who would suffer a greater hardship if an eviction decree was passed or refused. Judge S B Todkar ruled in favour of CCI, which had said Rustom would not suffer loss if ejected.
CCI vs Rustom: Landlord’s bona fide need carries day
K Rustom & Co, the iconic Churchgate ice-cream parlour, was using only one of the four galas rented to make and sell ice-cream, the Cricket Club of India (CCI) said in its suit seeking its eviction. On the other hand, with the number of members growing, CCI needed that space to expand its coffee shop, Poolside Glance, enhance sports and recreational activities and also provide banquet facilities.
In the small causes court, Rustom argued the CCI’s need was no bona fide. It said it could ill-afford not to use the whole premises as it paid large amounts towards electricity, water charges, telephone and other outgoing. It pointed out it had been a tenant ever since the building was constructed. “This was prior to the declaration of the Second World War, when premises were freely available in Mumbai,’’ it added.
Judge S B Todkar said Rustom had failed to prove CCI’s need is not bona fide. He agreed with CCI’s advocates Anand Gandhi and Vivek Kantawala that it is settled law that bona fide necessity of the landlord has to be considered. “The landlord has the right to decide which premises are suitable for the business he wants to start. Similarly, length of tenancy of the defendants ought not to be weighed,” he said.
CCI had said Rustom would not suffer loss if ejected. Also, any hardship can be mitigated “by reasonable compensation to the partners who are senior citizens and more or less retired from the active business”. Rustom countered that being a family firm, “it will be a great blow to the acquired goodwill and reputation... and they will be thrown on the streets”. Its partners are “working full time in the business, are healthy and capable of working for many more years”.
Rustom added it had been carrying on the business of ice-cream, eatables and readymade garments for long. But the judge said Rustom did not lead evidence “to show they were doing various activities on the premises”. Partner Rodabe Irani’s evidence showed it was doing its ice-cream business “only in part of the suit premises”.
Rustom’s plea that it could not find any other premises in the locality due to scarcity and escalating prices fell through. Rustom did not show at any time during the long-drawn litigation that it tried to find alternative accommodation but were unable to get it, said the judge. “Therefore, considering the above facts and circumstances, if (ejectment) decree is refused to be passed, the plaintiffs (CCI) would suffer greater hardship,” he concluded.