Shop occupied by landlord in 1956 for election campaign finally goes back to tenant after Bombay High Court judgment

A shop taken from a tenant for use as an election office during a 1956 Assembly campaign will finally go back to the tenant’s family after nearly 70 years, following a Bombay High Court ruling [(Ramesh Bhaskar Vs Umesh Trimbak].

Justice Rajesh S Patil directed the landlords to hand over possession of the shop to the tenant within eight weeks, after holding that there was no material to show that the tenancy had ever been surrendered.

The case concerned a 250 square feet shop at Godavari Bhuvan on LJ Road in Mumbai. The tenancy was created in 1944 in favour of the petitioners’ father at a monthly rent of ₹30.

In 1956, the original landlord, TR Naravane, sought the shop for use as his election office. The Court noted that Naravane later became a Minister in the Maharashtra government.

By a letter dated December 19, 1956, Naravane recorded that the tenant had agreed to allow him to use the shop for three to four months for election purposes. The letter also said the shop would be returned whenever the tenant required it, with 48 hours’ notice

The tenant was allowed to use one room in a nearby residential building, Shivneri, to accommodate his servant and stock-in-trade. However, the shop was not returned after the election campaign ended.

The tenant later filed a suit seeking possession. The Small Causes Court decreed the suit in 1998. However, the appellate bench of the Small Causes Court reversed the decree in 2001 after accepting the landlord’s case that the tenant had surrendered the tenancy.

The tenant then approached the High Court in 2001, where he was given interim relief with the Court directing the landlord not create any third-party interest over the shop's premises.

The suit remained pending for 25 years, and the final verdict was pronounced by the High Court on June 8.

In itsl verdict, the High Court has set aside the appellate court’s ruling and restored the trial court's 1998 decree in the tenant's favour.

Justice Patil held that the appellate court's finding of tenancy surrender was perverse, since there was no document to support it. The Court also noted that rent receipts continued to be issued for the shop even after 1956.

“There is no such document on record to suggest that there was surrender of tenancy," the High Court found.

The Court rejected the argument that the tenant had permanently swapped a ground-floor shop on a main road for a room on the second floor of a residential building.

“Nobody would surrender a shop premises for one room from a flat on a second floor from main road to an interior road," it said.

The Court also observed that Naravane was not a rustic villager, but a well-educated doctor who turned politician and later became a Minister.

The High Court held that a tenant could lose possession only through an eviction decree or surrender of tenancy. Neither existed in this case.

It, therefore, restored the trial court’s decree and ordered return of the shop within eight weeks.

Senior Advocate Virendra Tulzapurkar with Advocates Y S Bhate and Viraaj Y Bhate appeared for the petitioners.

The respondents were represented by Advocates Pradeep Thorat, Drupad Patil, Hemang Raythatha, Sunil Gangan, Swapnil Shikhare and Manav Chetwani, instructed by RMG Law Associates.

[Read Judgment]