The High Court at Calcutta, comprising a Division Bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya and Justice Sandip Kumar De, has held that the acceptance of rent by landlords during the statutory five-year moratorium period under Section 2(g) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 does not automatically create a fresh tenancy or acknowledge independent tenancy rights. Dismissing a First Appeal, the High Court affirmed an eviction decree passed by the City Civil Court at Calcutta against an occupant whose tenancy protection ceased upon the expiry of five years following his father’s death in 2009.
Background of the Case
The suit property was originally let out in 1910 to Hemanta, the grandfather of the appellant, Srikanta Paul. Upon Hemanta’s death, his son Tapan inherited the tenancy. Tapan passed away in 2009, after which the appellant claimed tenancy rights over the property. Rent receipts had consistently been issued in the name of the sole proprietorship operated by the successive occupants.
The landlords—Purshottam Lal Sanganeria (HUF), represented by its Karta Purshottam Lal Sanganeria and others—filed Title Suit No. 97 of 2016 in the City Civil Court at Calcutta seeking eviction under Section 2(g) of the 1997 Act. On June 29, 2024, the Sixth Bench of the City Civil Court granted an eviction decree in favour of the landlords. Aggrieved by the decree, the appellant appealed to the High Court in FA No. 204 of 2024.
Arguments of the Parties
The appellant challenged the eviction decree on three primary grounds:
- Lack of Subject-Matter Jurisdiction: The appellant argued that under Section 12A read with Schedule IV of the 1997 Act, eviction suits valued below ten lakh rupees must be filed before the Presidency Small Causes Court. Since the suit was valued at Rs. 4,391 based on 12 months’ last paid rent, the City Civil Court lacked inherent jurisdiction. Citing Hindustan Zinc Limited v. Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited (2019), the appellant submitted that “a decree passed by a court without jurisdiction is a nullity and that its invalidity could be set up whenever and wherever it is sought to be enforced or relied upon, even at the stage of execution and even in collateral proceedings.” Furthermore, relying on Nellimarla Jute Mills Company Ltd. v. Rampuria Industries & Investments Ltd. (2000/2004), the appellant argued that a “trespasser” means a person who has been one from the very beginning and not who had originally title but had lost the same because of efflux of time and/or by operation of law. The appellant asserted that he was at worst a tenant at sufferance, placing the suit under Schedule IV(c) of the 1997 Act.
- Non-Retrospective Application of Section 2(g): Relying on Rajesh Mitra v. Karnani Properties Ltd. (2024), the appellant contended that tenancy rights accrued prior to the 1997 Act could not be retrospectively extinguished by Section 2(g).
- Recognition as Independent Tenant: The appellant asserted that the issuance of rent receipts in the name of the sole proprietorship even after his father Tapan’s death amounted to independent recognition of his tenancy by the landlords.
In response, the landlords argued that:
- Schedule IV of the 1997 Act applies exclusively to suits for the eviction of “tenants”. Because the appellant’s legal status as a tenant ceased after the statutory five-year period under Section 2(g), he was no longer a tenant. Under Section 19 of the Presidency Small Causes Courts Act, 1882, Small Causes Courts cannot entertain suits for recovery of immovable property, rendering the City Civil Court the correct forum.
- In Rajesh Mitra, the tenancy devolved prior to the 1997 Act, whereas the appellant’s tenancy right in the present case accrued only upon his father’s death in 2009, well after the 1997 Act came into force.
- Citing an unreported judgment in Bela Rani Goswami v. Alok Roy Chowdhury (FA 34 of 2012), the landlords submitted that mere acceptance of rent during the five-year moratorium period does not create a fresh tenancy.
Court’s Analysis
The High Court adjudicated the appeal issue-wise:
- On Jurisdiction: The Bench observed that Section 12A explicitly applies to suits “by a landlord against a tenant”. Upon the expiry of five years from the death of his father, the appellant ceased to be a “tenant” under the 1997 Act. The Court held that whether the appellant was a tenant at sufferance or a trespasser was immaterial; since he was not a “tenant”, Section 12A read with Schedule IV(c) was not attracted. Because Section 19 of the Presidency Small Causes Courts Act, 1882 excludes eviction suits, the suit was correctly instituted before and decided by the City Civil Court.
- On Applicability of Section 2(g): The Court distinguished Rajesh Mitra, noting that in that case, tenancy devolved prior to the 1997 Act on legal heirs who resided with the original tenant under Section 2(h) of the 1956 Act. In contrast, while the appellant’s father Tapan inherited the tenancy prior to 1997, the appellant’s own claim accrued only upon Tapan’s death in 2009. The Bench observed that for heirs acquiring tenancy rights after the commencement of the 1997 Act, Section 2(g) strictly limits protection to a period of five years.
- On Issuance of Rent Receipts: The Court affirmed the principles laid down in Bela Rani Goswami, reiterating that “mere acceptance of rent after the expiry of the period of tenancy, without anything more, does not automatically create a fresh tenancy.” The Court highlighted that rent receipts issued to the appellant up to October 2010 fell within the statutory five-year moratorium period, during which he was legally entitled to remain a tenant under Section 2(g), and did not indicate an intention to create a new tenancy.
Decision of the Court
The High Court held that the grant of eviction by the trial court under Section 2(g) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 was justified and within the purview of law. Dismissing the appeal on contest, the Court affirmed the judgment and decree dated June 29, 2024, passed by the Judge, Sixth Bench, City Civil Court at Calcutta in Title Suit No. 97 of 2016. Interim orders were vacated, and no order as to costs was made.
Case Title: Srikanta Paul Vs. Purshottam Lal Sanganeria (HUF) represented by Karta Purshottam Lal Sanganeria and others
Case No.: FA No. 204 of 2024
Bench: Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya and Justice Sandip Kumar De
Date: 13.08.2026
