JUDGMENT :

RAJESH S. PATIL, J.

1) The present Writ Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenges the impugned judgment and decree dated 6 February 2001, passed by the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court, which allowed the appeal filed by the respondents thereby reversing the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court.

FACTS:

2) The suit premises is a shop bearing No.250B, situated at ground floor of Godavari Bhuvan, L.J. Road, Dadar (West), Mumbai – 400 208, admeasuring about 250 sq.ft. The petitioners are the tenant, and the respondents are the landlords of the suit premises. For sake of convenience, parties are referred to as tenants and landlords hereinafter.

2.1) In the year 1944, tenancy was created in favour of the petitioners’ father for monthly rent of Rs.30/-, and he was put into possession. On payment of rent, receipts were issued from time to time.

2.2) Since the landlord in the year 1956 was contesting for the Assembly Election of State of Maharashtra, he required space for opening office for election companion, and as the suit premises was situated on the front side of a prominent road, the landlord requested the tenant to allow him to use the suit premises for a period of 3 to 4 months. As things materialized the landlord, by his letter dated 19 December 1956, addressed to tenant, confirmed that he was glad that tenant had agreed to give the suit premises for a period of 3 to 4 months for landlord’s office for election purpose. And the premises will be given back whenever the tenant requires, with 48 hours notice.

2.3) In lieu thereof the tenant was permitted to occupy one room in a residential flat in nearby building ‘Shivneri’, to accommodate his servant and stock-in-trade.

2.4) As the time period concluded, and in spite of repeated reminders, the landlord did not hand over the possession of the suit premises, the tenant by written communication demanded back the possession. Since the landlord did not adhere to the demand, the tenant filed suit before the Bombay City Civil Court at Mumbai, seeking possession. In the said suit, the landlord raised an objection of jurisdiction of the Civil Court to try and entertain the suit. Based on objections raised, after hearing the parties, the learned Judge of Bombay City Civil Court, by his order dated 9 September 1998, returned the plaint to be filed before a proper forum.

2.5) Subsequently, the tenant approached the Small Causes Court at Bombay, by adding new paragraphs to the plaint and sought main prayer of possession of suit premises. The suit was numbered as R.A.E. Suit No.4957 of 1982. The landlord contested the suit by filing his written statement. Issues were thereafter framed and parties led their evidence by stepping into witness box. The trial Court after hearing the parties, by its judgment and decree dated 15 June 1998, allowed the suit for possession.

2.6) Being aggrieved by judgment and decree passed by trial Court of possession, the landlord preferred an appeal before the Division Bench of the Small Causes Court at Bombay. After hearing the Advocates of both the sides the Appellate Court by its judgment and decree dated 6 February 2001, reversed the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, and allowed the appeal. Dissatisfied by the judgment and decree passed by the appellate Court, the tenant has challenged the Appellate Court’s judgment and decree by filing writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

SUBMISSIONS:

3) Dr. Tulzapurkar appeared on behalf of the petitioner-tenant, and made his submissions.

3.1) He first showed me the writing dated 19 December 1956 addressed by landlord to the tenant.

3.2) He submitted that even after executing the letter dated 19 December 1956, the petitioner-tenant continued to pay rent of the suit premises and the landlord issued receipts to that effect.

3.3) The Appellate Court has erroneously recorded that tenant has surrendered the tenancy, without there being any document on