Mandatory tenancy surrender procedures make informal dispossession ineffective; later contrary precedent was treated as per incuriam.

A tenant's surrender of tenancy was ineffective unless it was in writing, verified before the Mamlatdar, and followed by the statutory inquiry required by the tenancy scheme. Non-compliance with these mandatory safeguards meant the landlord's possession did not lawfully defeat the tenant's restoration rights under Section 32(1B). The later view in Dhondiram Totoba Kadam was treated as per incuriam because it ignored the mandatory requirements of Sections 15 and 29 and an earlier binding precedent. A claimed transfer to a third party was also rejected for want of supporting factual basis and lawful title.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a tenant's voluntary surrender of tenancy, not made in writing and not verified before the Mamlatdar, could be treated as a valid surrender so as to defeat restoration under Section 32(1B); (ii) whether the later decision in Dhondiram Totoba Kadam was binding or had been rendered per incuriam for not noticing the mandatory requirements of Sections 15 and 29 and the earlier binding precedent.

Issue (i): Whether a tenant's voluntary surrender of tenancy, not made in writing and not verified before the Mamlatdar, could be treated as a valid surrender so as to defeat restoration under Section 32(1B).

Analysis: The statutory scheme treated surrender of tenancy and delivery of possession as lawful only when the surrender was in writing, verified before the Mamlatdar, and followed by the prescribed inquiry. The protections in Sections 15 and 29 were held to be mandatory and intended to safeguard the tenant against informal or ineffective dispossession. A surrender not complying with those requirements did not divest the tenant of the legal right to possession, and possession obtained by the landlord pursuant to such invalid surrender could not defeat restoration.

Conclusion: The surrender was invalid, and the tenant remained entitled to restoration under the Act.

Issue (ii): Whether the later decision in Dhondiram Totoba Kadam was binding or had been rendered per incuriam for not noticing the mandatory requirements of Sections 15 and 29 and the earlier binding precedent.

Analysis: The later decision was found to have proceeded without noticing the earlier co-ordinate Bench ruling that had already declared compliance with Sections 15 and 29 mandatory, and without considering those provisions at all. A decision rendered in ignorance of binding precedent or of a material statutory mandate was treated as per incuriam and therefore not a binding precedent. The Court also rejected the attempt to rely on a supposed transfer to a third party, holding that the factual basis for such claim was unsupported and that, in any event, no lawful title or possession had passed so as to defeat the tenant's statutory claim.

Conclusion: Dhondiram Totoba Kadam was per incuriam and could not control the outcome.

Final Conclusion: The statutory protection of the tenant prevailed, the contrary view was not binding, and the tenant's right to restoration was upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the statute makes surrender and dispossession conditional upon compliance with prescribed mandatory procedures, any non-compliant surrender is ineffective, and a later decision ignoring that mandate and earlier binding authority is per incuriam and not binding.

---