Landlord occupied tenant’s shop during 1956 polls, Bombay HC returns it after 69 years

NEW DELHI: Nearly seven decades after a landlord took temporary possession of a tenant's shop during a 1956 election campaign and never returned it, the Bombay high court has finally restored possession of the shop to the tenant's family.What was the disputeThe dispute revolved around a shop in Dadar, Mumbai. A ground-floor shop on what the court described as "one of the busiest roads of Mumbai city."The tenancy had originally been created in 1944 in favour of the petitioners' father at a monthly rent of Rs 30.In 1956, the landlord, who was contesting the Maharashtra Assembly elections, requested the tenant to vacate the shop temporarily for use as an election office.This arrangement was confirmed in a letter dated 19 December 1956, in which the landlord wrote to the tenant that "I am glad that you have agreed to give me for use of my election office for a period of 3-4 months. The Shop in 250 B L.J. Road which you are occupying as my tenant I shall give the place in your charge whenever you require with 48 hours notice."In lieu of the shop, the tenant was permitted to temporarily occupy a room in a nearby building. However, the shop was never handed back, triggering a prolonged legal battle that continued for decades.What the court foundThe Bombay high court, in its judgment pronounced on 8 June 2026 by Justice Rajesh S. Patil, ruled in favour of the tenant's successors.The court found that the Appellate Court's conclusion that the tenant had surrendered the tenancy was "perverse," further noting that "there is no such document on record to suggest that there was surrender of tenancy."The court also pointed to the continued payment of rent as conclusive proof that the tenancy had never ended."Once according to the landlord, the tenancy was surrendered then there was no question of tenant paying the rent and landlord issuing receipt to that effect. The said event continued three years after the tenancy according to the landlord was surrendered," the court said.The court further rejected the landlord's argument that the parties had effectively swapped premises, that the tenant had given up a prime shop in exchange for a room in a nearby building.The court added that it is hard to believe that anyone would swap main road shop for one room flat."hard to believe, apart from the fact that nobody would surrender a shop premises for one room from a flat on a second floor from main road to an interior road," the court said."The landlord is not a rustic villager who does not understand or does not know to read and write. He is a well-educated and a doctor by profession who turned into a politician and then became Minister in the State Assembly of Maharashtra. He has signed all the receipts before and after 1956, which mentions about the suit premises being a shop premises at Godavari building," it further added.The court also took note of the extraordinary length of time the landlord had held on to the premises."From the date he has taken possession from the tenant, it is almost more than now 50 years and even today on a suggestion put up by this Court, he is not ready to hand over back the possession to the tenant against whom there is no eviction decree."The high court set aside the Appellate Court's order, restored the trial court's decree in favour of the tenant, and directed that possession of the shop be handed over to the tenant's family within eight weeks.