Admission of Notice to Quit Unambiguously Satisfies Conditions for Eviction under Order XII Rule 6 CPC: Calcutta High Court Upholds Eviction

Calcutta High Court delivered a significant ruling addressing the interplay between eviction decrees and arrear rent claims under the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. The Court upheld a judgment of eviction based on admissions under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, while modifying the lower court’s decision to expedite eviction, de-linking it from arrear rent adjudication.

The appeal arose from a dispute regarding eviction and arrear rents between the landlord, M/s. Signotron (India) Pvt. Ltd., and the tenant, M/s. Nautica Hospitality Consulting Private Limited. The plaintiff (landlord) sought eviction of the tenant based on termination of tenancy through notices issued under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.

Key events in the case included the service of two notices to quit—dated September 22, 2018, and January 17, 2019—along with the defendant’s written statement acknowledging receipt of the latter. The Trial Court issued a decree of eviction under Order XII Rule 6 CPC based on this admission but postponed execution until the arrear rent claim was fully adjudicated.

The defendant (tenant) challenged the eviction decree in FAT 194 of 2020.

The plaintiff (landlord) appealed against the delay in eviction execution in FAT 191 of 2020.

Whether admission of receipt of a notice to quit satisfies the conditions for eviction under Order XII Rule 6 CPC.

Whether eviction decrees can be delayed or made contingent upon adjudication of arrear rent claims.

Impact of multiple notices to quit under Section 113 of the Transfer of Property Act.

The High Court reaffirmed the Trial Court’s reliance on the defendant’s written statement, where it unambiguously admitted receiving the notice to quit dated January 17, 2019. Paragraphs 8 and 10 of the written statement clearly acknowledged the notice, meeting the criteria for eviction under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act and Order XII Rule 6 CPC.

“Order XII Rule 6 is couched in a wide language… the only safety valve for the defendant is that the admission has to be unambiguous, as in the present case with regard to the receipt of the notice dated January 17, 2019.”

The Court cited the Supreme Court's judgment in Payal Vision Limited v. Radhika Choudhary, (2012) 11 SCC 405, holding that in eviction suits governed by the Transfer of Property Act, the existence of a landlord-tenant relationship and termination of tenancy are the only required elements. Both were undisputed in this case.

The High Court disagreed with the Trial Court’s decision to delay eviction until arrear rent claims were resolved, holding that the two issues are legally independent. The Court emphasized that the plaintiff’s entitlement to an eviction decree is not contingent upon the adjudication of arrears:

“The plaintiff/lessor’s money claim regarding arrear rents is totally independent of the component of entitlement of the plaintiff to get a decree for eviction. As such, the plaintiff need not wait till the final adjudication of arrear rents for having the defendant vacate the premises.”

The tenant argued that the second notice (dated January 17, 2019) waived the earlier notice (dated September 22, 2018) under Section 113 of the Transfer of Property Act. The Court acknowledged that service of a subsequent notice could imply waiver of a prior notice. However, it clarified that this argument was irrelevant to the case at hand, as the eviction was based on the unequivocally admitted receipt of the second notice:

“The consideration regarding waiver of the first notice is entirely irrelevant in the present context… The admitted receipt of the notice dated January 17, 2019 suffices for eviction under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act.”

(Defendant’s Appeal): The Court dismissed the tenant’s appeal, upholding the eviction decree issued by the Trial Court.

(Plaintiff’s Appeal): The Court allowed the landlord’s appeal, modifying the Trial Court’s order to direct immediate eviction without awaiting the adjudication of arrear rent claims.

The defendant to vacate the suit premises immediately.

The execution case regarding eviction to proceed expeditiously.

The Trial Court to independently adjudicate the arrear rent claim without linking it to the eviction decree.

The Calcutta High Court’s ruling underscores the principles of eviction law under the Transfer of Property Act and the utility of Order XII Rule 6 CPC in resolving disputes expeditiously when admissions are unequivocal. By clarifying that arrear rent claims cannot delay eviction, the Court provided much-needed guidance on segregating distinct causes of action in landlord-tenant disputes.

Date of Decision: November 12, 2024