Tenant Evicted For Rent Default Despite Claims Of Adjustment Toward Municipal Taxes; Rebuilding Ground Rejected For Want Of Genuine Need: Calcutta High Court

"The word 'require' means 'to be in need of'. So there must be element of need in demanding vacant possession from the tenant for the purpose of building or rebuilding... the landlord still has to establish that his requirement in respect of the suit premises is genuine and not fanciful," Calcutta High Court, in a significant ruling dated April 20, 2026, has affirmed the eviction of a tenant on the ground of default in payment of rent, while simultaneously setting aside an eviction decree based on the ground of "building and rebuilding" for the augmentation of income.

A bench of Justice Dr. Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee observed that the statutory mandate under Section 7(2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act (WBPT Act), 1997, must be scrupulously followed, and any failure to deposit determined arrears within the statutory period forfeits the tenant's protection against eviction.

The litigation involved Austin Distributors (P) Ltd. (the tenant) and the deities Sri Sri Iswar Ganesh Chandra Jiu along with several secular co-sharers (the landlords). The landlords sought eviction from the suit premises at AJC Bose Road, Kolkata, on two primary grounds: default in payment of rent since July 1990 and the "reasonable requirement" for building and rebuilding to augment the income of the deities and co-sharers. While the Trial Court decreed eviction only on the ground of default, the First Appellate Court expanded the decree to include the ground of building and rebuilding.

The primary questions before the court were whether the tenant had complied with the requirements of Section 7(2) of the WBPT Act, 1997, to seek protection from eviction, and whether the landlords had established a genuine "requirement" for building and rebuilding under Section 6(1)(c) of the Act, particularly in the absence of a sanctioned plan.

Strict Compliance With Section 7(2) Mandatory For Protection Against Eviction

The court examined the tenant's claim that they were not defaulters because they had paid over ₹7 lakh in municipal taxes, which should have been adjusted against the rent. It was noted that while a previous High Court order in 2006 had allowed an adjustment of ₹85,000 toward rent arrears, the tenant failed to deposit the remaining balance of the determined arrears (approximately ₹78,372) within the 30-day statutory period.

The Court observed that Section 7 of the Act provides a complete mechanism for avoiding eviction on the ground of arrears, provided the tenant deposits the determined amount. The bench noted that the tenant’s failure to pay the balance amount, as admitted by the defense witness in cross-examination, resulted in the loss of protection under Section 7(4).

"The appellant remains statutory defaulter under section 7(2) and is not entitled to get benefit of protection against eviction under section 7(4) on the ground of default of rent."

Simultaneous Pursuit Of Recovery And Adjustment Constitutes 'Giving A Go-By' To Court Orders

The Court highlighted a significant contradiction in the tenant’s conduct. While the tenant sought adjustment of municipal taxes against rent, they simultaneously obtained an ex parte decree in a separate suit for the recovery of the full tax amount (₹7,61,272) from the landlords and put that decree into execution.

The bench held that by pursuing the full recovery of taxes through execution, the tenant had effectively given a "go-by" to the consent order regarding the adjustment of ₹85,000 toward rent. This compounded the default, as the tenant could not seek the benefit of adjustment while also executing a decree for the same amount.

High Court Cannot Re-Appreciate Evidence In Second Appeal Unless Findings Are Perverse

Relying on the Supreme Court’s decisions in Gurdev Kaur v. Kaki and Kondiba Dagadu Kadam v. Sabitribai Sopan Gujar, the Court reiterated the limited scope of Section 100 of the CPC. It held that the concurrent findings of the lower courts regarding rent default were based on a proper appreciation of evidence and did not raise any substantial question of law.

The Court emphasized that it is not within the domain of the High Court to investigate the grounds on which findings of fact were arrived at by the last court of fact, provided the decision is not contrary to mandatory provisions of law or based on inadmissible evidence.

"Required" Means Genuine Need, Not Mere Desire To Augment Income

Turning to the ground of building and rebuilding under Section 6(1)(c) of the WBPT Act, 1997, the Court restored the Trial Court's view, which had rejected this ground. The bench noted that although the word "reasonably" was omitted from the 1997 Act (unlike the 1956 Act), the term "required" still necessitates an element of genuine need.

The bench observed that the landlords had failed to produce evidence regarding the deities' current income or the specific expenditures required for religious ceremonies to justify the plea of augmentation. The court held that a "mere desire" to earn more money by entering into a development agreement with a promoter does not satisfy the statutory requirement of "need."

"The requirement of the plaintiffs for building rebuilding must be honest and should not be confined only to the existence of an intention in the mind of the landlord to divest the interest with the object of augmentation of personal income."

Lack Of Sanctioned Plan And Preparation Vitiates Claim For Rebuilding

The Court critiqued the First Appellate Court for granting a decree based on a development agreement with Merlin Projects Ltd. without a sanctioned plan or soil testing. It held that the genuineness of a claim for rebuilding must be established through surrounding circumstances, including the condition of the building and the landlord's preparation.

The bench also raised serious concerns regarding the propriety of a shebait divesting devattar property to a third-party promoter. It questioned whether such a divestment, which would result in the promoter getting a 76% share of the property, could be considered as being for the welfare of the deity or merely for the augmentation of the shebait's personal income.

Absence Of Directions Under Section 11(1) Does Not Invalidate Decree

Addressing the third legal issue, the Court clarified that the failure of a lower court to specify a period for completion of rebuilding or to provide for the tenant’s re-entry under Section 11(1) does not render an eviction decree invalid. Citing Mahananda v. Biswanath, the court held that the High Court in a second appeal has the power to issue such directions if the ground for rebuilding is upheld.

The High Court ultimately affirmed the decree of eviction solely on the ground of default in payment of rent under Section 6(1)(b) of the Act. However, it set aside the First Appellate Court's findings on the ground of building and rebuilding, concluding that the landlords failed to establish a genuine, non-fanciful requirement for the premises.

Date of Decision: 20 April 2026