### Tenant's Surrender of Tenancy Cannot Be Presumed Without Written Proof or a Formal Eviction Decree

In 1944, a tenancy was created in favor of the petitioners' father for a shop premises at Godavari Bhuvan, Mumbai.

In 1956, the landlord (a prominent politician) requested the tenant to temporarily vacate the premises for 3–4 months for an election campaign office, promising to return possession upon 48 hours' notice.

The tenant was relocated to a residential room in "Shivneri" to store goods.

Despite the landlord's written confirmation dated 19 December 1956, possession was never restored.

Rent receipts were issued for the original shop premises until 1959.

The tenant initially filed a suit in the City Civil Court, which returned the plaint for lack of jurisdiction in 1981.

The tenant then approached the Small Causes Court (R.A.E. Suit No. 4957 of 1982). The Trial Court decreed in favor of the tenant, but the Appellate Bench reversed this, holding that the tenancy had been surrendered.

The petitioners challenged this reversal under Article 227.

1. Whether the Small Causes Court has the jurisdiction to entertain a suit for recovery of possession filed by a tenant against a landlord under the Bombay Rent Act.

2. Whether the act of temporarily shifting to an alternative premises for the landlord’s convenience constitutes a "surrender of tenancy".

Section 28 of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (now Section 33 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999), which vests exclusive jurisdiction in the Small Causes Court for suits between landlords and tenants relating to recovery of possession.

Full Bench judgment in Dattatraya Krishna Jangam v. Jairam Ganesh Gore, which held that the City Civil Court lacks jurisdiction over claims arising under the Rent Act.

A tenancy can only be terminated by a court decree or a valid surrender, the latter requiring clear evidence of intent.

The Court found the Appellate Court's finding of "surrender of tenancy" to be perverse. It reasoned that since the landlord continued to issue rent receipts for the shop premises for three years after the alleged surrender in 1956, the landlord-tenant relationship clearly persisted.

The Court noted that the landlord, an educated Doctor and Minister, could not claim the receipts were for "Shivneri" when they explicitly mentioned "Godavari Bhuvan".

The Court observed that no reasonable tenant would permanently swap a prime ground-floor commercial shop for a second-floor residential room without consideration or a written agreement.

On jurisdiction, the Court held that Section 28 is wide enough to cover a tenant’s suit for re-possession, especially when the landlord fails to return the premises after a temporary vacation for repairs or personal convenience, drawing an analogy with Sections 13(1)(h) and 13(1)(hh).

The Court answered Issue 2 in the negative, holding there was no surrender.

The High Court set aside the Appellate Bench's judgment and restored the Trial Court's decree in favor of the tenant; the respondents were ordered to hand over possession of the suit premises to the tenant within eight weeks and the Rule was made absolute.