Sanchayita Lahkar

The Supreme Court of India, a Division Bench comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan, dismissed a Special Leave Petition and affirmed the findings of the Calcutta High Court and the Fifth Bench of the City Civil Court at Calcutta. The case involved an eviction dispute under the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997, arising from the continued occupancy of a premises by the son of a deceased tenant beyond the statutorily permitted five-year period.

The apex court declined to interfere with the decisions of the lower courts, upholding the eviction decree on the ground of clear admissions in the pleadings that entitled the plaintiff to judgment under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC).

Also Read: “The Advertisement Certainly Required Them To Produce a Valid Certificate to Their Claim as per Rules” Supreme Court Dismisses Civil Judge Aspirants’ Pleas on Certificate Cut-Off

The dispute cantered on the premises formerly tenanted by the late Ranjan Ghosh, who passed away on 13 July 2016. The plaintiff, Satya Naryan Jaiswal, the owner of the suit premises, instituted Title Suit No. 1068 of 2021 against the defendant, Rajiv Ghosh, seeking recovery of possession and mesne profits. Rajiv Ghosh continued to occupy the premises post the demise of his father and claimed tenancy rights as the legal heir.

The plaintiff served a notice dated 20 July 2018 to Rajiv Ghosh, informing him that he could only inherit the tenancy for a period of five years from his father’s death under Section 2(g) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997. It was also stated that post this period, his occupancy would no longer be recognized as lawful tenancy. The notice was received on 21 July 2018, but no satisfactory response followed.

In his written statement, the defendant admitted the following:

• His father, Ranjan Ghosh, was the sole tenant.

• The plaintiff is the rightful owner.

• Rent was paid until May 2021.

Subsequently, the plaintiff moved an application under Order XII Rule 6 of CPC, seeking a decree upon admission. The defendant opposed the application, arguing that there were triable issues and denying that any clear admission had been made to warrant judgment without a full trial. He further asserted that tenancy had not lapsed and challenged the plaintiff's reliance on the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997.

Nonetheless, the City Civil Court decreed the suit based on admissions found in the pleadings. The High Court, while dismissing FAT No. 7 of 2024, concurred with the lower court and observed:

"Although the defendant has not pleaded in the Written Statement that he was a dependent of the original tenant... even proceeding on the premise that the defendant was a dependent... he would be entitled to sustain his tenancy... only up to the expiry of a period of 5 years from the demise of the original tenant."

The High Court held that as this period had already lapsed before the institution of the suit, no further adjudication was necessary.

The Supreme Court upheld the lower courts’ reliance on Section 2(g) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, which defines a "tenant" and specifies a five-year limit for heirs (other than the widow) to continue tenancy.

"The dependent heir of the original tenant unless she is the widow... would be entitled to carry on as a tenant... for a period of 5 years from the demise of the original tenant," the court stated, referring to the statutory provision.

It also addressed the application of Order XII Rule 6 CPC:

"Where a claim is admitted, the court has jurisdiction to enter a judgment for the plaintiff and to pass a decree on the admitted claim... The object of the rule is to enable a party to obtain speedy judgment at least to the extent of the relief to which, according to the admission of the defendant, the plaintiff is entitled."

Rejecting the argument that Section 2(g) was not applicable, the Court stated:

"If according to the petitioner the provisions of the Act, 1997 are not applicable then what was the good reason for him to file the application under Sections 7(1) & 7(2) of the Act, 1997 respectively."

The Supreme Court further clarified the discretionary nature of Order XII Rule 6:

"The powers conferred on the court by this rule are untrammelled and cannot be crystallized into any rigid rule... If the court is of the opinion that it is not safe to pass a judgment on admissions... it may insist upon clear proof of even admitted facts."

However, in this case, the court concluded that the admissions were sufficiently clear and unequivocal to justify a decree without a full trial.

Also Read: “Horizontal Reservation Must Apply”: AP High Court Dismisses MBBS Aspirant’s Plea for Sports Quota Seat in Open Category

The Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition and upheld the High Court's decree. The defendant was granted three months from the date of the High Court order to vacate the premises. The execution proceedings were to remain stayed for this period. If the premises were not vacated within this timeframe, the plaintiff was permitted to proceed with execution.

"In the event the defendant/appellant does not vacate the premises... the plaintiff/decree holder will be at liberty to proceed with the execution case and the same will be expedited by the executing court."

The Court also directed the Registry to circulate the judgment to all High Courts, and for those High Courts to circulate the same to their respective District judiciary.

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioner: Mr. Ramnath Jha, on behalf of Mr. Amit Kumar

Case Title: Rajiv Ghosh vs. Satya Naryan Jaiswal

Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 467

Case Number: Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 9975 of 2025 (Diary No. 8323 of 2025)

Bench: Justice J.B. Pardiwala, Justice R. Mahadevan

[Read/Download order]