Rajiv Ghosh v. Satya Narayan Jaiswal

Read E-book: https://lawyerslibrary.in/books/djlg/

Case Citation : 2025 (4) KLR (SC) 45 : 2025 INSC 467
Court : Supreme Court of India
Judges : J.B. Pardiwala, J.; R. Mahadevan, J.
Date of Judgment : April 7, 2025
Case Type : Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 9975 of 2025 (Diary No. 8323 of 2025)

West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 – Section 2(g) – Inherited Tenancy – Limitation Period: Son of deceased tenant entitled to tenancy for five years from tenant’s death unless a fresh tenancy agreement is created. Defendant’s tenancy expired five years after father’s death (July 13, 2016), rendering him a trespasser.

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Order XII Rule 6 – Judgment on Admissions: Clear and unequivocal admissions in defendant’s written statement (tenant’s death, plaintiff’s ownership, rent paid until May 2021) justified eviction decree without full trial. Provision is discretionary, enabling speedy justice on admitted facts.

Practice and Procedure – New Argument at Appellate Stage: Defendant’s claim that 1997 Act was inapplicable, raised for first time before Supreme Court, rejected as not argued in lower courts. Defendant’s prior reliance on Act’s provisions contradicted new argument.

Held: Special Leave Petition dismissed, affirming High Court’s eviction decree. Defendant granted three months to vacate. Order circulated to High Courts for District Judiciary dissemination.

Case Cited: Uttam Singh v. United Bank of India (2000) 7 SCC 120.

Procedural History

• Trial Court: Vth Bench, City Civil Court at Calcutta, Title Suit No. 1068 of 2021, decreed eviction on December 2, 2023, based on admissions under Order XII Rule 6, CPC.
• High Court: Calcutta High Court, FAT No. 7/2024, dismissed on November 14, 2024, affirming the trial court’s eviction decree.
• Supreme Court: Special Leave Petition dismissed on April 7, 2025.

Facts

• The plaintiff, Satya Narayan Jaiswal, is the lawful owner of the suit premises. The defendant’s father, Ranjan Ghosh, was a tenant at a monthly rent of Rs. 1700, including corporation taxes.
• Ranjan Ghosh died on July 13, 2016. The defendant, Rajiv Ghosh, his son, resided in the premises until his father’s death.
• On July 20, 2018, the plaintiff served a notice to the defendant, stating that under Section 2(g) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997, the defendant could claim inherited tenancy for only five years from his father’s death (until July 13, 2021).
• The defendant received the notice on July 21, 2018, but did not respond satisfactorily.
• The plaintiff filed Title Suit No. 1068 of 2021 for possession and mesne profits. The defendant admitted in his written statement that:
  • Ranjan Ghosh was the sole tenant and died on July 13, 2016.
  • The plaintiff is the owner, and rent was paid until May 2021.
• The plaintiff moved for a decree under Order XII Rule 6, CPC, based on these admissions. The trial court granted the eviction decree.
• The defendant appealed to the Calcutta High Court, which dismissed the appeal, affirming the eviction decree and granting three months to vacate.
• The defendant filed a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court.

Issues

1. Whether the defendant’s admissions in the written statement justified a decree under Order XII Rule 6, CPC.
2. Whether Section 2(g) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997, applied, limiting the defendant’s tenancy to five years post the original tenant’s death.
3. Whether the defendant could claim continued tenancy as a legal heir if the 1997 Act was inapplicable.

Arguments

• Petitioner (Defendant):
  • Argued that there were no clear admissions warranting a decree under Order XII Rule 6, CPC, and the suit required a full trial.
  • Claimed material triable issues existed, and the court’s discretion under Order XII Rule 6 should not be exercised.
  • Later argued before the Supreme Court that the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997, was inapplicable, and as a legal heir, he could continue tenancy.
• Respondent (Plaintiff):
  • Relied on the defendant’s admissions that Ranjan Ghosh was the tenant, died in 2016, and rent was paid only until May 2021.
  • Argued that under Section 2(g) of the 1997 Act, the defendant’s tenancy expired five years after Ranjan Ghosh’s death (July 13, 2021), rendering him a trespasser.
  • Sought a decree based on admissions under Order XII Rule 6, CPC, without a full trial.

Legal Provisions

• Section 2(g), West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997: Defines “tenant” and limits inherited tenancy for a dependent heir (except the widow) to five years from the original tenant’s death.
• Order XII Rule 6, CPC: Allows the court to pronounce judgment based on admissions made in pleadings or otherwise, at any stage, to enable speedy justice. The provision is discretionary, not mandatory.

Holding

• The Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition, affirming the High Court and trial court’s decisions.
• The defendant’s admissions in the written statement (regarding the original tenant’s death, plaintiff’s ownership, and rent payment until May 2021) were clear, unequivocal, and sufficient to grant a decree under Order XII Rule 6, CPC.
• Section 2(g) of the 1997 Act applied, limiting the defendant’s tenancy to five years from July 13, 2016. Since this period expired before the suit’s filing, the defendant was a trespasser.
• The defendant’s argument that the 1997 Act was inapplicable was rejected as it was not raised before the trial or High Court. The defendant’s application under Sections 7(1) and 7(2) of the 1997 Act further indicated acceptance of the Act’s applicability.

Reasoning

• Admissions and Order XII Rule 6, CPC:
  • The defendant’s written statement admitted critical facts, enabling the court to decree eviction without a full trial.
  • Order XII Rule 6 is an enabling provision allowing speedy judgment on clear admissions. The court’s discretion was appropriately exercised, as the admissions were unambiguous.
  • The Supreme Court cited precedents like Uttam Singh v. United Bank of India (2000) and ITDC Limited v. Chander Pal Sood (2000), emphasizing that admissions, whether in pleadings or otherwise, justify judgment under this rule.
• Section 2(g), 1997 Act:
  • The provision clearly limits inherited tenancy for a son to five years unless a fresh tenancy agreement is created, which was not claimed here.
  • The defendant’s tenancy expired on July 13, 2021, and the plaintiff’s cessation of rent acceptance post-May 2021 aligned with this legal position.
• New Argument on Applicability of 1997 Act:
  • The defendant’s claim that the 1997 Act was inapplicable was not raised earlier, making it untenable at the Supreme Court stage.
  • The defendant’s reliance on Sections 7(1) and 7(2) of the 1997 Act in the trial court contradicted this argument, confirming the Act’s applicability.

Disposition

• Special Leave Petition dismissed.
• High Court’s order affirmed, including the three-month period granted to the defendant to vacate the premises.
• No order as to costs.
• The Supreme Court directed the Registry to circulate the order to all High Courts for further dissemination to District Judiciaries.

Significance

• Reinforces the application of Order XII Rule 6, CPC, for speedy justice when clear admissions exist, reducing the need for protracted trials.
• Clarifies the scope of Section 2(g) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997, in limiting inherited tenancy rights.
• Emphasizes that new legal arguments not raised in lower courts are unlikely to be entertained at the appellate stage, especially in the Supreme Court.

Multiple Choice Questions (MCQs)

1. What was the primary legal provision applied by the courts to limit the defendant’s tenancy in Rajiv Ghosh v. Satya Narayan Jaiswal?
   a) Section 7(1) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997
   b) Section 2(g) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997
   c) Order VIII Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
   d) Section 17 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872
   Correct Answer: b) Section 2(g) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997
   Explanation: Section 2(g) limits inherited tenancy for a dependent heir (except the widow) to five years from the original tenant’s death, which was applied to terminate the defendant’s tenancy.
2. Under which provision of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, did the trial court grant the eviction decree?
   a) Order VIII Rule 5
   b) Order XII Rule 6
   c) Order X Rule 1
   d) Order VI Rule 5
   Correct Answer: b) Order XII Rule 6
   Explanation: The trial court granted the decree based on admissions in the defendant’s written statement under Order XII Rule 6, which allows judgment on clear admissions.
3. What was the duration of the inherited tenancy period allowed to the defendant under Section 2(g) of the 1997 Act?
   a) Two years from the tenant’s death
   b) Five years from the tenant’s death
   c) Ten years from the tenant’s death
   d) Indefinite period for legal heirs
   Correct Answer: b) Five years from the tenant’s death
   Explanation: Section 2(g) specifies a five-year tenancy period for dependent heirs like the defendant, except for the widow, from the date of the original tenant’s death.
4. Why was the defendant’s argument that the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997, was inapplicable rejected by the Supreme Court?
   a) It was not supported by any evidence
   b) It was raised for the first time before the Supreme Court
   c) The plaintiff had not addressed it in the plaint
   d) The trial court had already ruled on it
   Correct Answer: b) It was raised for the first time before the Supreme Court
   Explanation: The Supreme Court rejected the argument as it was not raised before the trial or High Court, and the defendant’s prior reliance on the Act’s provisions contradicted it.
5. What was the final outcome of the Special Leave Petition filed by Rajiv Ghosh?
   a) The petition was allowed, and the case was remanded for trial
   b) The petition was dismissed, affirming the eviction decree
   c) The petition was partially allowed, extending the tenancy period
   d) The petition was adjourned for further evidence
   Correct Answer: b) The petition was dismissed, affirming the eviction decree
   Explanation: The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, upholding the High Court’s eviction decree and granting the defendant three months to vacate.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

1. What was the main issue in Rajiv Ghosh v. Satya Narayan Jaiswal?
   The main issue was whether the defendant, Rajiv Ghosh, could continue as a tenant after the death of his father, the original tenant, and whether his admissions in the written statement justified an eviction decree under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The applicability of Section 2(g) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997, which limits inherited tenancy to five years, was also central.
2. How did Section 2(g) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997, affect the defendant’s tenancy?
   Section 2(g) defines a tenant and limits inherited tenancy for dependent heirs (except the widow) to five years from the original tenant’s death. Since the defendant’s father died on July 13, 2016, the defendant’s tenancy expired on July 13, 2021, making him a trespasser thereafter, as no fresh tenancy agreement was established.
3. What role did Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, play in this case?
   Order XII Rule 6 allows courts to pronounce judgment based on clear admissions made in pleadings or otherwise. The trial court used this provision to grant an eviction decree based on the defendant’s admissions that his father was the sole tenant, died in 2016, and rent was paid only until May 2021, which aligned with the expiry of the five-year tenancy period.
4. Why did the Supreme Court refuse to entertain the defendant’s argument that the 1997 Act was inapplicable?
   The Supreme Court rejected this argument because it was not raised before the trial court or the High Court. Additionally, the defendant’s application under Sections 7(1) and 7(2) of the 1997 Act in the trial court indicated his acceptance of the Act’s applicability, contradicting his new claim.
5. What was the significance of the admissions made by the defendant in his written statement?
   The defendant’s admissions that his father was the tenant, died on July 13, 2016, and that rent was paid until May 2021 were clear and unequivocal. These admissions satisfied the requirements of Section 2(g) of the 1997 Act, confirming the expiry of his tenancy, and enabled the court to grant a speedy eviction decree under Order XII Rule 6, CPC, without a full trial.