True Story behind Property Case against Siddharth Mahajan

True Story behind Property Case against Siddharth Mahajan

About Siddharth Mahajan

Siddharth Mahajan was a young enterprising individual who commenced on his professional journey in the hospitality industry in 2001 after completing his Bachelor’s degree in Hotel Management from the Oriental School of Hotel Management. After working for 3 years in Oberoi Rajvilas, Jaipur, Mahajan set foot in London in order to create a worthwhile career. With a keen interest in the hotel industry, he pursued various jobs with various hotels that gave him enriching exposure to the market and the business. This led him to start his own company – Tulip Hotels and Real Estate Ltd. Tulip Hotels was founded to let out service apartments to travelers looking for long-term accommodation options with comforts and facilities of a house. The business plan was a hit and Siddharth became a successful young entrepreneur in the UK serving the community and offering them a perfect sense of place and home. Today, the Tulip Hotels owner has 48 million British pounds worth of assets to his credit of which 34 million are in lending and 14 million British pounds is his current net worth.

What was the case against Siddharth Mahajan?

When Tulip Hotels and Real Estate Ltd. owner Siddharth Mahajan was wrongly accused of not abiding by the law and regulations pertaining to HMOs (House in Multiple Occupation) many questions arose and several allegations were placed on him as the truth remained untold. Clients, business associates, and other stakeholders looked for clarity but the rumors had spread.

Read below to understand every detail about the Siddharth Mahajan Property Case.

READ  The UK’s Growing Global Overseas Market

Siddharth Mahajan established Tulip Hotels and Real Estate Ltd. in 2011. The concept was to let out service apartments to travelers – mainly working professionals and overseas students coming in for exchange programs and internship opportunities. First of all, Siddharth converted 5 of his personally owned properties into 6 room HMOs (House in Multiple Occupation). The concept received an overwhelming response and the business began to thrive. He leased out several more properties to accommodate the growing business and subsequently even invested in a few. Currently, he has 57 properties, of which 7 are registered under Siddharth’s individual ID and 47 under Tulip Hotels. 

In 2015, the Barking and Dagenham Borough of London sent enforcement to Siddharth stating that 3 of his properties that were transformed into 6 room HMOs are devoid of the appropriate licensing and were supposedly illegal. Siddharth Mahajan negated the charges stating he had followed every legal procedure in obtaining the licenses for these houses. He further explained that during his license application procedure he was not informed that his 6 room HMOs required submission of a plan.

The borough stated the rule of plan submission for HMOs with 6 rooms or more was introduced in 2012, however, Mahajan argued he had obtained the license from the council in 2014 and if such a law existed, then authorities ought to have informed him of the same during the license application procedure. So the puzzling question was – Why did the licensing department allot the licenses for Siddharth’s small HMOs if his application did not fulfill the required parameters?

READ  7 Ways to Avoid an IR35 Investigation

 Additionally, a widely recognized and accepted fact was that small HMOs did not require any plan and all the three properties in question were, in fact, small HMOs.  

The Barking and Dagenham Borough of London clarified that there are two disparate departments; one is the licensing department which overlooks the health and safety aspects and quality of accommodation and the other – planning and development of properties. Siddharth confessed that he had knowledge about the legalities concerning HMOs was restricted as his business was still developing. Just as he was slowly, steadily absorbing and understanding the laws and regulations, ensuring his business processes were well in line with them, the council placed allegations of foul play on him.

More about the case

In the beginning, Mahajan was advised to reserve his comments and disclose information only in the court of law. This gave fire to a lot of narratives where details were tweaked to make Siddharth Mahajan appear at fault. His integrity was questioned and Tulip Hotels was put under the scanner. Everyone wanted to know the truth. Everybody associated with Siddharth wished to know all about the case against him.

 Following extensive examination, one out of three properties received a clean chit; while two were still being probed. Siddharth Mahajan expressed his disappointment when the tenants who passed on the tenancy rights to him for the properties in question were made scot-free by the jury. Although these tenants had used the 6 room HMOs prior to Mahajan, it was he who had to face the allegations of having forged documents. In totality, authorities placed 18 charges on him of which only 2 were taken forward and convicted him of “perverting the course of justice”.

READ  Wallet App Review: Your Personalized Budgeting Assistant

Every other charge was refuted due to the complete lack of evidence. With regards to the two properties, Siddharth is determined the court of law will serve him justice as he has the utmost confidence that truth will prevail.

Due to the legal processes, Mahajan was given custodial sentencing as per which he was restricted from continuing his business operations four months– 2 months for each property. He took this in his stride and kept himself engaged by signing up for a journalism course while simultaneously teaching math. He wished to continue working and serving the community in one way or another so teaching seemed like an appropriate option.

As for the status quo of the case, the police could not find any legal flaws in Mahajan’s overall business conduct and thus could not reprimand him, he has appealed to the court and is awaiting its decision for the two properties in question.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here