In the ruling that was handed down on April 7, 2025, the Supreme Court of India addressed the contentious issue of whether or not a legal heir is permitted to continue occupying a rented premises after the death of the original tenant in accordance with the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997.
The case of Rajiv Ghosh v. Satya Narayan Jaiswal sheds light on the limitations of tenancy rights, the statutory definitions that are included in Section 2(g), and the procedural applicability of Order XII Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), 1908. The decision was handed down by Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan during the proceedings.
Historical context and the facts of the case
The respondent, Satya Narayan Jaiswal, received a monthly rent payment of Rs. 1700 from the petitioner, Rajiv Ghosh, who was the son of Ranjan Ghosh, the original tenant of the premises in question. Despite the fact that Ranjan Ghosh passed away on July 13, 2016, Rajiv Ghosh continued to live in the same house.
For More Updates & Regular Notes Join Our Whats App Group (https://chat.whatsapp.com/DkucckgAEJbCtXwXr2yIt0) and Telegram Group ( https://t.me/legalmaestroeducators ) contact@legalmaestros.com.
A notice dated July 20, 2018, which was served by the respondent, notified the petitioner that in accordance with Section 2(g) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997, he could only be regarded a tenant for a period of five years after the death of his father. After the expiration of this time period, he would no longer be covered by the Act.
For More Updates & Regular Notes Join Our Whats App Group (https://chat.whatsapp.com/DkucckgAEJbCtXwXr2yIt0) and Telegram Group ( https://t.me/legalmaestroeducators )
The notification was delivered to Rajiv, but he did not leave the premises despite receiving it.
A title suit was launched by the landlord for possession and mesne profits as a result of this consequence. Despite the fact that the petitioner admitted some important facts, such as the fact that his father was the sole tenant and acknowledged the ownership of the plaintiff, he argued against eviction and claimed that he was entitled to tenancy rights as a legal heir.
Section 2(g) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 is the legal framework that governs this topic.
According to the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, Section 2(g), the term “tenant” encompasses legal successors of a deceased tenant, regardless of whether they were the tenant’s spouse, children, or parents, provided that they were living with the tenant and were reliant on them. It is essential to note that the duration of such a tenancy can only be extended for a period of five years from the date of the tenant’s death, with the exception of the widow of the tenant, who may remain in the property without a time limit under specific circumstances.
The purpose of this clause is to strike a balance between the rights of landlords and a certain degree of protection for remaining members of the family. In order to prevent heirs from abusing their inherited tenancy rights, it places explicit legislative limitations and places restrictions on heirs’ ability to claim indefinite tenancy.
Rules 6 of Order XII of the Civil Procedure Code are considered to be procedural provisions.
According to Rule 6 of Order XII of the CPC, courts have the authority to render decisions based on admissions made by parties during the pleadings or in other circumstances, whether they are given verbally or in writing. This provision makes it easier to resolve uncontested issues in litigation at an earlier stage, which saves both time and resources for the judicial system.
In this particular case, the plaintiff (landlord) submitted an application for a decree on admission in accordance with this rule. The application cited Rajiv Ghosh’s unequivocal acknowledgment in his written statement concerning his father’s tenancy and maintenance payments up until May 2021.
In spite of the fact that the defendant contended that he had not acknowledged to being a trespasser and presented arguments that required a full trial, the courts determined that the admissions in the pleadings, when read in conjunction with Section 2(g), were sufficient to warrant eviction without further trial.
Examination by the Trial Courts and the Courts of Appeals
Following an examination of the pleadings and statements, the trial court came to the conclusion that there were obvious admissions that merited a decision on admission from the court. The court highlighted that Rajiv Ghosh’s residence became unlawful once the statutory five-year period under Section 2(g) ended (in July 2021). This occurred in July of 2021.
The Calcutta High Court supported this ruling, which stated that Rajiv Ghosh did not have the status of a tenant under the Act since he did not claim any independent rights other than being the legal heir of the deceased tenant, and the five-year statutory limit had elapsed. This decision was upheld because the court decided that Rajiv Ghosh did not claim any independent rights. He was considered to be a trespasser because he continued to hold the property.
Additionally, the High Court made it clear that even although the defendant did not expressly plead Section 2(g), the conditions that must be met in order to activate it were included in the written declaration. Because of this, the court came to the conclusion that it was an implicit acknowledgment and upheld the decision of the lower court.
The Inferences and Justifications of the Supreme Court
The Special Leave Petition that Rajiv Ghosh had submitted was denied by the Supreme Court, which did so in order to uphold the decisions made by the High Court. In its decision, the Court emphasized many important points:
Section 2(g) was applicable since Rajiv Ghosh admitted that he claimed tenancy through his father and that he did not possess any independent tenancy agreement. As a result, the statutory restriction of five years was applicable. Without authorization, he continued to occupy the space after July 13, 2021.
Effect of Admission: The court reaffirmed that, in accordance with Order XII Rule 6, judgment might be rendered on oral or written admissions, even if they were not legally titled as such. The factual coherence with the provisions of the statute, which was present in this instance, is what must be considered.
The verdict underlined that the rule is discretionary, which is a component of the discretionary power of the courts. Although the courts are not required to base their decisions only on admissions, they have the authority to do so where the admissions are explicit, clear, and comprehensive, as they were in this particular instance.
Tenant’s Behavior: The court took note of the fact that the petitioner had even submitted petitions under Sections 7(1) and 7(2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act. This further justified the application of the Act in his case, which was in contrast to his late arguments before the Supreme Court.
Decisions Made Regarding Vital Legal Matters
Several important legal problems were raised as a result of the case:
According to the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, who is eligible to become a tenant following the death of the person who was the initial tenant?
The question of whether or not an heir can assert rights to indefinite tenancy without a new agreement.
The extent to which admissions made in pleadings can lead to a decree being issued without a complete trial being conducted.
This article will discuss how procedural laws such as Order XII Rule 6 can assist in the speedy resolution of disputes.
According to a decision that was handed down by the Supreme Court, the statutory protection that is provided by Section 2(g) is restricted in time and is subject to certain qualifications. After the protection has expired, a legal heir who does not have a new lease agreement will be considered an unauthorized occupant of the housing unit.
A clear strengthening of landlords’ rights to reclaim possession of a property following the expiration of statutory tenancy protections is provided by the verdict that was handed down in the case of Rajiv Ghosh v. Satya Narayan Jaiswal. The notion that tenancy rights are not automatically inheritable beyond the law’s stipulated period is upheld by this document. Additionally, it provides evidence that procedural mechanisms such as Order XII Rule 6 can be utilized efficiently to accelerate justice in situations when the facts are not in question.
This verdict will serve as a precedent in matters pertaining to tenancy, particularly in situations when legal heirs overstay in rented premises without establishing a new tenancy. A more well-rounded strategy for dealing with tenancy disputes is provided as a result of this clarification of the scope of both statutory rights and procedural expediency.
