Case Name: Rajiv Ghosh vs. Satya Narayan Jaiswal
Case number: Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 9975 of 2025 (DIARY NO. 8323 OF 2025)
Date: 7 April, 2025
Quorum: Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan
Facts
The respondent, Satya Naryan Jaiswal, is the lawful owner of the suit premises. And the petitioner, Rajiv Ghosh claims to be the lawful tenant.
The petitioner’s father, Late Ranjan Ghosh, was a regular tenant under the respondent at a monthly rent of Rs. 1700 including corporation taxes. And he passed away on 13.07.2016 The petitioner, being the son of Ranjan Ghosh, was residing in the suit premises with his father until his demise.
The respondent served a notice dated 20th July 2018 to the petitioner, informing him that his inherited tenancy was limited to five years from his father’s death (13.07.2016) under the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997, and that he could not be considered a tenant under Section 2(g) of the Act after this period.
But, the petitioner did not reply satisfactorily and leading the respondent to file a title suit (no. 1068 of 2021) for eviction and mesne profits in 2021
And Mr. Rajiv admitted in his written statement that:
- His father was the sole tenant.
- The plaintiff was the owner.
- Rent was paid until May 2021
The respondent filed an application under Order XII Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) for a decree based on the petitioner’s admissions.
The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the respondent based on these admissions.
The petitioner challenged this decree before the High Court at Calcutta, which dismissed his appeal on 14.11.2024, affirming the trial court’s judgment.
The petitioner then filed a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court.
Issues
Whether the judgment and order passed by the High Court affirming the decree of eviction based on the petitioner’s admissions were justified.
Whether the petitioner was entitled to continue in possession of the suit premises beyond the five-year statutory period granted to the son of a deceased tenant under Section 2(g) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997.
Whether the admissions made by the petitioner in his written statement were sufficient for the court to pass a judgment on admission under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC.
Whether the provisions of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997, were applicable to the petitioner’s case.
Legal provisions
Section 2(g) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997: Defines “tenant” and includes the spouse, son, daughter, parent, and the widow of a predeceased son of a deceased tenant who were ordinarily living with and dependent on the tenant up to the date of death and do not own or occupy any residential premises, for a period not exceeding five years from the date of the tenant’s death or the Act coming into force, whichever is later. It also outlines provisions for a preference for tenancy in a fresh agreement.
Order XII Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC): Provides for judgment on admissions, stating that where admissions of fact have been made in the pleading or otherwise, the Court may at any stage of the suit, either on application or on its own motion, make such order or give such judgment as it thinks fit having regard to such admissions. Sub-rule (2) mandates that a decree shall be drawn up in accordance with the judgment.
Order VIII Rule 5 of the CPC: Deals with the specific denial of allegations in a plaint.
Section 17 of the Indian Evidence Act: Defines “admission” as a statement made in oral, documentary, or electronic form suggesting an inference to a fact in issue or relevant fact.
Section 23 of the Indian Evidence Act: Lists circumstances under which an admission is relevant in civil cases, with a proviso giving the court discretion to require proof of admitted facts.
Arguments
Arguments from respondent (Satya Naryan Jaiswal)
The petitioner unequivocally admitted in his written statement that his father was the sole tenant, his father’s death occurred on 13.07.2016, and the respondent is the owner.
The petitioner also admitted that rent was paid until May 2021, which was after the expiry of the five-year statutory period under Section 2(g) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997.
Based on these admissions, the petitioner’s inherited tenancy was limited to five years from his father’s death and he had no right to continue in possession after that period, becoming a trespasser.
The trial court and the High Court were correct in applying Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC to pass a decree of eviction based on these clear admissions.
The filing of applications under Sections 7(1) & 7(2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997, by the petitioner in the trial court indicated his acceptance of the Act’s applicability.
Arguments from petitioner (Rajiv Ghosh)
The application for judgment on admission was not maintainable in law or on facts, being frivolous and misconceived.
There was no clear admission in the pleadings, as the term “admission” under Section 17 of the Indian Evidence Act allows for discretionary power of the Court to require proof.
There was material issues involved in the suit that required a full-fledged trial and an opportunity to lead evidence.
He denied admitting to being a trespasser and stated that he was a tenant who paid rent.
He had filed applications under Sections 7(1) & 7(2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997, for payment of rent, indicating he considered himself a tenant under the Act.
His counsel argued that the petitioner was not governed by the provisions of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997, making the discussion regarding Section 2(g) unnecessary and implying his right to continue as a legal heir outside the Act’s purview.
Analysis
The Supreme Court agreed with the lower courts that the petitioner’s written statement contained clear and indisputable admissions regarding the original tenancy, the respondent’s ownership, and the timeline of events.
The Court found that Section 2(g) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997, was directly applicable, limiting the inherited tenancy of the petitioner (being the son) to a period of five years from his father’s death. This period expired on 13.07.2021.
The Court emphasized that Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC grants the court discretion to pass a judgment on admissions at any stage of the suit to provide speedy relief based on admitted claims. The primary object is to get rid of so much of the action where there is no controversy.
The Court noted the amendments to Order XII Rule 6, which clarified that admissions can be oral or written and made in pleadings or otherwise.
The Supreme Court rejected the petitioner’s argument that the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997, did not apply. This argument was raised for the first time before the Supreme Court and was inconsistent with the petitioner’s conduct of filing rent deposit applications under the same Act in the trial court. The Court found this argument baseless and vague.
The High Court correctly reasoned that even if the petitioner was considered a dependent heir, his tenancy was limited to five years, which had already expired at the time of the suit’s institution. Consequently, he was declassified to the status of a trespasser.
Judgement
The Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition filed by the petitioner.
This affirmed the judgment and order of the High Court at Calcutta, which had dismissed the petitioner’s appeal and upheld the decree of eviction passed by the Trial Court.
The petitioner was granted a further period of three months from the date of the Supreme Court’s order (07.04.2025) to vacate the premises.
The pending execution case was stayed for this three-month period, after which the respondent would be at liberty to proceed with the execution, which was to be expedited.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court upheld the decree of eviction, concluding that the petitioner’s own admissions in his written statement, when considered in light of Section 2(g) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997, clearly established that his right to continue in possession as a tenant had expired. The Court found no error in the High Court’s application of Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC to pass a judgment on these admissions. The case reiterates the principle that clear and unambiguous admissions in pleadings can form the basis for a speedy judgment, and that statutory provisions regarding tenancy rights, including those related to inheritance, will be applied by the courts.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal falls into the category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
WRITTEN BY ABHINAV VERMA
