Partial tenancy surrender does not create a new tenancy; breach of injunction by a receiver gives no statutory protection.

Partial surrender of part of a tenancy does not end the entire tenancy, and a continuing occupant may retain statutory protection where possession of the remaining premises continues. A mere reduction in area or rent does not, by itself, create a fresh tenancy. By contrast, a receiver can create only rights consistent with the court's injunction, so a tenancy granted in breach of that restraint is ineffective against the court order and does not attract protection under the premises tenancy law. The existing tenant's protection was sustained, while the occupant inducted in breach of the injunction was liable to eviction.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether surrender of two flats by an existing tenant and continuation in the remaining flats created a new tenancy, and whether such continuation retained protection under the premises tenancy law. (ii) Whether the receiver's grant of tenancy to a new occupant in breach of the court's injunction could claim protection under the premises tenancy law.

Issue (i): Whether surrender of two flats by an existing tenant and continuation in the remaining flats created a new tenancy, and whether such continuation retained protection under the premises tenancy law.

Analysis: Partial surrender of part of the demised premises does not, by itself, amount to surrender of the whole tenancy. A mere reduction of rent or change in the manner of payment does not necessarily bring a fresh tenancy into existence. A periodic or monthly tenancy is treated as an accretion to the existing tenancy, not as a wholly new demise. On the facts, the existing tenant remained in possession of the other flats and the tenancy in respect of those flats continued.

Conclusion: No new tenancy was created in respect of the continuing tenant, and that tenant remained entitled to statutory protection.

Issue (ii): Whether the receiver's grant of tenancy to a new occupant in breach of the court's injunction could claim protection under the premises tenancy law.

Analysis: A receiver acts as an officer of the court and can confer only such rights as are consistent with the court's order. A tenancy created in breach of an injunction restraining transfer or creation of fresh tenancy is legally ineffective against the court's directions. Such an occupant cannot derive statutory protection from a tenancy created in violation of the court's order.

Conclusion: The new occupant's tenancy was invalid against the court's injunction and no protection under the premises tenancy law was available.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded only in part, with the existing tenant's protection sustained while the new occupant was held liable to eviction.

Ratio Decidendi: Partial surrender of part of a tenancy does not terminate the whole tenancy, and a tenancy created in breach of a court's injunction by a receiver confers no statutory protection on the occupant.

---