Inherited Tenancy Limitation and Decree on Admissions: A New Landmark from RAJIV GHOSH v. SATYA NARAYAN JAISWAL

1. Introduction

The Supreme Court of India’s decision in Rajiv Ghosh v. Satya Narayan Jaiswal (2025 INSC 467) establishes a pivotal principle regarding the scope and duration of inherited tenancy rights under the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 (“the 1997 Act”). The litigation revolved around the eviction of the petitioner (original defendant) from a premises previously occupied by his late father (the original tenant). Key legal issues included whether the defendant could continue as a lawful tenant beyond the five-year statutory period and the propriety of granting a decree upon admissions under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure (“CPC”).

This commentary examines the factual background, the reasoning of the Court, and the lasting legal impact of this Judgment, which conclusively held that a dependent heir’s right of tenancy (other than for the widow) is limited to five years from the date of the original tenant’s death. Further, it clarifies the Court’s discretionary power to grant a decree on admissions when the basic facts are undisputed.

2. Summary of the Judgment

The suit originated in the City Civil Court at Calcutta, where the plaintiff (original landlord) sought recovery of possession and mesne profits from the defendant (original tenant’s son). Following judgments in favor of the plaintiff at both trial and appellate levels, the defendant ultimately challenged the decisions before the Supreme Court.

In dismissing the Special Leave Petition, the Supreme Court upheld that the defendant, being the son of the deceased tenant, could only occupy the property for a maximum of five years after his father’s demise under Section 2(g) of the 1997 Act. Additionally, the Court found that the defendant’s explicit admissions in his written statement warranted the trial court’s invocation of Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC to grant a speedy decree on admissions. The Supreme Court reaffirmed the limited inheritance principle and the availability of an expedited procedure via judgment on admissions where there is no genuine dispute over key factual elements.

3. Analysis

A. Precedents Cited

The Supreme Court’s Judgment relied upon several established authorities on Order XII Rule 6, most notably Uttam Singh v. United Bank of India [(2000) 7 SCC 120], where the Court clarified the legislative intent behind permitting swift judgments on clear admissions. It also relied on older English and Indian cases (e.g., Throp v. Holdsworth (1876) 3 Ch D 637, and Balraj Taneja v. Sunil Madan (1999) 8 SCC 396) to underscore the purpose of “speedy judgment” on claims where facts are not in genuine dispute.

As for tenancy law, the Court thoroughly discussed Section 2(g) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997, emphasizing its clear wording that restricts a deceased tenant’s dependent heirs (other than a widow) to a five-year occupation right unless a fresh tenancy is created through a valid agreement. This reaffirmed earlier jurisprudence on the limitation of inherited tenancy rights under certain tenancy statutes.

B. Legal Reasoning

1. Inherited Tenancy Rights: The Supreme Court explained that under Section 2(g) of the 1997 Act, once the original tenant dies, non-spousal heirs (such as sons or daughters) can only continue in tenancy for a maximum of five years. After this statutory period, if no new agreement is forged with the landlord, the occupant’s status shifts to that of a trespasser.

2. Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC - Decree on Admissions: The Court spent considerable effort clarifying the scope of Order XII Rule 6, specifically that:

• Admission can be oral or written, in the pleadings or “otherwise.”
• Where the admissions are unequivocal and leave no room for doubt, the Court may grant a decree without a full trial.
• The provision is enabling and discretionary—courts “may” (not “shall”) issue such a decree, considering the facts and circumstances.

These principles justified the lower courts’ decisions to grant eviction without requiring lengthy formal evidence, as the defendant had admitted key facts (i.e., that his deceased father was the sole tenant and that rent ceased to be accepted after the statutory period).

3. No Fresh Tenancy: The defendant’s contention that a new tenancy might have been created was unsubstantiated. The record showed no formal arrangement after the original tenant’s death. Accordingly, the Court determined that the five-year limitation applied and that the defendant could no longer be considered a tenant.

C. Impact

This decision has wide-ranging implications for both landlords and tenants in West Bengal. By affirming that a dependent heir’s tenancy is time-limited and that a speedy decree is permissible upon clear admissions, the Court has:

• Resolved uncertainties surrounding the practical application of Section 2(g) of the 1997 Act, providing clarity on the precise duration of inherited tenancy rights for non-spousal heirs.
• Strengthened the usefulness of Order XII Rule 6, encouraging litigants to use admissions effectively to avoid protracted trials where facts are uncontested.
• Prompted higher and lower courts to expediently determine similar eviction disputes based on clear admissions, thereby reducing court backlogs.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

“Order XII Rule 6 (CPC) – Decree on Admissions”: This rule allows courts to grant an immediate judgment if one party unequivocally admits critical facts that entitle the other to relief. Admissions may arise in pleadings, in documents, or even orally during proceedings. Because this rule is discretionary, courts weigh whether an admission truly resolves the dispute before granting a decree.

“Inherited Tenancy under Section 2(g) of the 1997 Act”: Under this provision, heirs who lived with the original tenant and who were dependent on him or her may continue as statutory tenants for five years after the tenant’s death. After that period (unless the heir is the widow or a fresh agreement is created), the tenancy expires by operation of law, and the landlord may seek eviction.

“Trespasser”: Once a person’s right to occupy property ends (e.g., through expiry of a statutory right like the five-year inheritance period), that person’s continued occupation is considered unauthorized. At that point, the occupant is deemed a trespasser who can be evicted through appropriate legal proceedings.

5. Conclusion

In Rajiv Ghosh v. Satya Narayan Jaiswal, the Supreme Court of India has unequivocally reinforced two key aspects of civil law litigation. First, that non-spousal heirs inheriting a tenancy cannot remain tenants indefinitely beyond the five-year statutory limit, unless the tenancy is formally renewed. Second, that a court may, in the presence of clear and cogent admissions, harness Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC to expedite justice rather than subject the dispute to a full trial.

The rich discussion on statutory interpretation under Section 2(g) of the 1997 Act, combined with the in-depth explanation of a court’s discretion to grant decrees on admissions, will serve as an authoritative guidepost for future eviction suits and interpretive questions under tenancy laws. The Judgment thus stands as a definitive statement on how the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997, and the CPC interlock to balance the rights of landlords with safeguarding the procedural efficiency and fairness that the justice system demands.