Tenant Seeking Restoration Of Possession From Landlord Must Approach Small Causes Court: Bombay High Court

Justice Rajesh S. Patil was hearing a writ petition filed by tenants challenging a judgment of the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court, which had reversed a decree passed in their favour. The dispute concerned a shop premises, which had been let out to the petitioners' father in 1944. According to the tenants, in 1956, the landlord, who was contesting Assembly elections, requested temporary use of the shop for his election office for three to four months. By a letter dated 19 December 1956, the landlord recorded that the premises would be returned whenever the tenant required it, upon 48 hours' notice. The tenants contended that despite repeated demands, possession was never restored after the expiry of the agreed period. They therefore instituted proceedings seeking possession of the shop.

The Court examined the letter dated 19 December 1956 and noted that it expressly recorded that the tenant had agreed to permit use of the shop for election purposes for a period of three to four months and that possession would be returned whenever demanded. The Court observed that there was no document whatsoever evidencing surrender of tenancy by the tenant. It further noted that rent receipts continued to be issued even after 1956 in respect of the suit premises.

The Court held that the Appellate Court's finding regarding surrender of tenancy was perverse as it was unsupported by any documentary evidence. The Court observed that if the tenancy had truly been surrendered, there was no reason for the landlord to continue accepting rent and issuing receipts in respect of the suit premises.

On the issue of jurisdiction, the Court noted that the tenant had initially approached the Bombay City Civil Court, which returned the plaint on the ground that it lacked jurisdiction. The Court observed that Section 28 of the Bombay Rent Act confers jurisdiction on the Small Causes Court to entertain suits between landlords and tenants relating to possession of premises. It held that the language of Section 28 is wide enough to include a suit for re-possession filed by a tenant.

“… section 28 deals with entertaining any suit between landlord and tenant, relating to the recovery of rent or possession of premises. In my view, the language of Section 28 of the Bombay Rent Act is wide enough to cover even a suit for re-possession filed by tenant,” the court observed,

The Court further observed that the Bombay Rent Act is a beneficial legislation enacted for the protection of tenants. It held that where a tenant temporarily parts with possession, and the tenancy is neither terminated by a decree nor surrendered, the tenancy continues and the tenant is entitled to seek restoration of possession before the Small Causes Court.

Accordingly, the Court quashed the judgment of the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court, restored the decree passed by the Trial Court and directed the landlords to hand over possession of the suit premises to the tenants within eight weeks.

Case Title: Ramesh Bhaskar Utturkar v. Unmesh Trimbak Naravane [Writ Petition No. 4229 of 2001]

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 282