-
by sayum
02 April 2026 11:12 AM
“Requirement Certain to Arise in Reasonably Foreseeable Future is Reasonable Requirement” – In a significant ruling under Section 13(1)(ff) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956, the Calcutta High Court on 24 February 2026 dismissed a second appeal challenging concurrent decrees of eviction.
Justice Sugato Majumdar upheld the findings of both the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court that the suit premises were reasonably required by the landlady and that the notice to quit, returned with postal endorsement “not claimed”, constituted valid service.
The Court also rejected the plea that the decree was a nullity on account of the death of one of the joint tenant heirs during the pendency of the suit.
Eviction Suit for Own Use After Husband’s Retirement
The eviction suit (Title Suit No. 86 of 1992) was filed for recovery of possession of one room on the ground floor, originally let out to Khealiram Agarwal for running a grocery shop.
The landlady pleaded that her husband was about to retire and required the suit premises to start a business. Notice to quit was issued, which returned with the endorsement “not claimed.” The plaintiffs asserted that the tenancy stood determined from 1st February 1992.
The legal heirs of the original tenant contested the suit, disputing the bona fide requirement and the validity of service of notice.
Both courts below decreed eviction. The tenants carried the matter to the High Court in second appeal.
“Future Requirement is No Requirement?” – Court Answers in the Negative
One of the substantial questions of law framed at admission was whether, in the absence of proof of the exact retirement date, the requirement could be termed reasonable.
The appellants argued that a future requirement is no requirement in law.
Rejecting this submission, the Court relied on the Division Bench decision in Mono Ranjan Dasgupta v. Suchitra Ganguly, which held that a requirement “even though not immediately existing may still be good enough… if it is certain to arise in reasonably foreseeable future.”
Justice Majumdar observed:
“What ‘reasonable requirement’ contemplates is reasonableness of claim; not fantastic, exaggerated and fabulous claim which is not present in this case.”
The Court held that when the suit was filed, the husband was on the verge of retirement and the requirement was neither speculative nor fanciful. The concurrent findings of fact on reasonable requirement warranted no interference in second appeal.
“Not Claimed” Postal Endorsement Amounts to Valid Service
The appellants further contended that the ejectment notice had not been duly served, and in absence of evidence of repeated tender, presumption of service could not be drawn.
The High Court rejected this plea.
Relying on Madan & Company v. Wazir Jaivir Chand (AIR 1989 SC 630), the Court reiterated that when a registered letter is properly addressed and returned, service can be deemed to have been effected. The Supreme Court had observed:
“If a registered letter addressed to a person at his residential address does not get served in the normal postal course and is returned, it can only be attributed to the addressee's own conduct.”
Further relying on Subhas C. Mitra (2004 (2) CHN 679), the Court noted that when a notice is returned with endorsement “not claimed” and there is no plea that the tenant had left the premises or was absent, the presumption of service stands.
“There is no plea that recently by the time of service of notice the tenant was an absentee one… therefore, notice had been duly served.”
Accordingly, the tenancy was validly determined.
Death of One Joint Tenant Heir – Is Decree a Nullity?
An additional substantial question of law was framed on the effect of the death of Defendant No. 7 (widow of the original tenant) during pendency of the suit, without substitution of her legal heirs.
The appellants argued that the decree passed against a dead person was a nullity and hit by Order XXII CPC.
The High Court rejected this argument as “baseless and misconceived.”
Referring to Suresh Kumar Kohli v. Rakesh Jain (2018) 6 SCC 708 and H.C. Pandey v. G.C. Paul (1989) 3 SCC 77, the Court reiterated the principle that on death of a tenant, legal heirs inherit the tenancy as joint tenants.
The Supreme Court had held:
“An eviction petition against one of the joint tenants is sufficient against all the joint tenants and all joint tenants are bound by the order… as joint tenancy is one tenancy and is not a tenancy split into different legal heirs.”
In the present case, all legal heirs of the original tenant had been impleaded. On the death of one heir, the remaining joint tenants continued on record. Therefore, the suit did not abate and the decree was not a nullity.
Scope of Interference in Second Appeal
Justice Majumdar emphasised that both the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court had concurrently found:
The notice to quit was validly served.
The premises were reasonably required by the landlord.
The decree was legally sustainable.
No perversity or substantial error of law was demonstrated.
“Concurrent findings of both the Courts demand no interference.”
Relief: Sixty Days to Vacate; Liberty to Claim Mesne Profits
The second appeal was dismissed. The appellants were directed to deliver possession within sixty days from drawing up of the appellate decree, failing which execution could be initiated.
Liberty was granted to the respondent to institute a separate suit for mesne profits.
The judgment reaffirms three settled principles of tenancy law:
“Requirement certain to arise in reasonably foreseeable future satisfies the test of reasonable requirement.”
“Postal endorsement ‘not claimed’ constitutes valid service when notice is properly addressed and tendered.”
“In case of joint tenancy, decree against one binds all; death of one heir does not render decree a nullity.”
The ruling underscores the limited scope of interference in second appeal where concurrent findings of fact are neither perverse nor contrary to law.
Date of Decision: 24/02/2026
