Since April 1926, a restaurant on Regent Street has been operating in silence. It made it through the Blitz. It withstood the financial crises, the pandemic, the postwar years, and the turbulent 1980s. There, Winston Churchill dined. It was where Vivien Leigh dined. The Danish King was so fond of the location that he sent a cask of Carlsberg beer and stored it there for his own visits. Veeraswamy has been one of those unique locations that manages to endure while everything around it changes for a century.
It is now facing eviction. Additionally, it is suing the Crown Estate for it.
The Central London County Court will host the five-day hearing starting on June 29. On one side: Since the establishment of the restaurant, Victory House’s upstairs dining room has been occupied by MW Eat, the parent company of Veeraswamy. The Crown Estate, on the other hand, is a sizable property portfolio that is owned by the current monarch in right of the crown and contributes its earnings to the Treasury. On paper, this is not quite an even contest. However, a sizable section of Britain appears to be watching with something akin to collective anxiety as the owners continue to make their case.
The Crown Estate takes a simple, if not particularly sympathetic, stance. The upper office floors of Victory House, which have been vacant since a flood damaged the power supply in 2023, are to undergo a thorough renovation. In order to create a larger reception area for potential tenants, part of that renovation entails demolishing the wall that divides the restaurant entrance from the office entrance. In the process, Veeraswamy will be completely removed from the building. According to the estate, this would enable it to significantly raise office occupants’ rent. Presumably, a corporate lobby makes more sense mathematically than a dining room.
The assertion that accommodation is just not feasible is more difficult to refute. In a witness statement, the restaurant’s 83-year-old co-owner, Ranjit Mathrani, stated that the work can definitely be completed while maintaining business operations, calling it a typical component of similar renovations in London. His group has suggested that office tenants use the new entrance. The Crown Estate believes it could get more rental income elsewhere, and they have offered to match that amount. Both were rejected by the estate.
This financial disparity is not insignificant. According to MW Eat, the cost of moving, furnishing a new location, and covering the closing expenses would come to about five million pounds. The owners claim that the financial compensation offered by the Crown Estate only covers a small portion of what would truly be required. The cost of moving a century-old institution that is centered around a particular room, staircase, or view of Regent Street is another, more difficult to measure.
Mathrani and his spouse, Namita Panjabi, brought a petition with over 20,000 signatures to Buckingham Palace earlier this year, pleading with King Charles to step in. To put it mildly, Panjabi noted that Veeraswamy had catered at Buckingham Palace twice: once in 2009 during a visit by the Indian President and again in 2017 in honor of the country’s 70th anniversary of independence. Michel Roux and Raymond Blanc, two famous chefs, signed the petition. Outside the Palace, supporters gathered with signs that said, “Keep Calm and Curry On.” In a measured response, Buckingham Palace stated that the Crown Estate should make the decision.
Beyond the legal disputes over lease renewals and renovation schedules, it’s hard not to feel the weight of what this case truly represents. Edward Palmer, an Indian man, founded Veeraswamy by using recipes he had learned from his grandmother, which were originally served at Hyderabad’s royal palace. Over the course of a century, the restaurant developed into a unique kind of bridge connecting Indian and British culture. Along with Liberty and Hamleys, it is among the oldest tenants on Regent Street, according to its co-owners. That is not insignificant.
It’s another matter entirely whether sentiment matters in a county court. Regardless of the wisdom of the refurbishment rationale, it is not unprecedented in London’s real estate market, and the Crown Estate maintains a strong legal position. The restaurant’s main defense is to demonstrate that there are other options and that closing is an option rather than a requirement. It is more difficult to prove that than it may seem.
On June 29, the hearing will begin. Five days. A century of history on one side of the courtroom, and a landlord’s redevelopment plans on the other.
