Supreme Court Affirms Eviction Based on Admission of Limited Tenancy Inheritance

This appeal in the Supreme Court is preferred against the High Court at Calcutta's rejection of the defendant's appeal against an order of eviction ordered by the City Civil Court at Calcutta. The suit was filed by the respondent/plaintiff, the legal owner of the suit premises, to recover possession and mesne profits from the petitioner/defendant, who had claimed to be a lawful tenant. The father of the appellant/defendant was the original tenant, who died in 2016, and the defendant remained on the premises. The respondent/plaintiff issued a notice informing the appellant/defendant that his inherited rights of tenancy as the son of the deceased tenant were restricted to five years of his father's death under the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997. Supreme Court in addressing the question as to whether the courts below had the right to pass a decree of eviction on the basis of the admissions made by the defendant in his written statement under Order XII Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), specifically on the interpretation and applicability of Section 2(g) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997, which describes "tenant" and includes certain heirs for a limited time after the tenant's death.

The Supreme Court opined that the Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC authorizes the court to pass judgment on admissions by parties in pleadings or otherwise, at any stage of the suit, so as to facilitate speedy justice.

The Apex Court referred to the finding of the High Court that the defendant's own pleadings provided enough factual ingredients to bring him within the scope of Section 2(g) of the 1997 Act, restricting his tenancy to five years from the date of death of his father, which had already lapsed when the suit was instituted. It further considered the defendant's inconsistent act of seeking applications under Sections 7(1) & 7(2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997, which suggested his acceptance of applicability of the Act.

The Supreme Court dismissed the special leave petition in its last order, thus upholding the eviction order. The Court held that there was no fault in the decision of the High Court of Calcutta and ruled that the defendant's clear and unequivocal admissions made in his written statement justified the invocation of Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC to decree for eviction, and the Court gave the defendant another three months' time to vacate.

CORAM: Justice Abhay S. Oka & Justice Ujjal Bhuyan
BETWEEN: Rajiv Ghosh vs Satya Naryan Jaiswal 2025 INSC 467
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 07-04-2025