Back
Rejects Ashok Jaiswal's Appeal: '' Requires Financial Link Under Tenancy Act
Court clarifies that psychological or emotional ties alone do not qualify as "dependence" under the .
Introduction
In a significant ruling on , a dismissed an appeal filed by Ashok Jaiswal, affirming the passed against him by the City Civil Court. The Court held that the term "" under must be understood in a , and cannot be stretched to include psychological or other extraneous elements. The Bench, comprising Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya and Justice Sandip Kumar De, also ruled that the appellant failed to prove he "" with the deceased tenant, his wife Madhuri Jaiswal.
Case Background: The Dispute Over Tenancy Succession
The suit premises were originally tenanted by Madhuri Jaiswal. After her death, the landlord, Amalendu Kumar Nandi, filed an eviction suit against Ashok Jaiswal on the ground that the tenancy stood extinguished under Section 2(g) of the 1997 Act. Ashok Jaiswal claimed protection as a "tenant" under the same provision, arguing that he was a of his deceased wife and had been ordinarily residing with her at the suit premises. The trial court ruled against him, leading to the present appeal.
Arguments Presented: Appellant Versus Respondent
Appellant’s Case:
Learned counsel for Ashok Jaiswal raised three primary contentions. First, the plaint lacked the necessary pleadings regarding the ingredients of Section 2(g), citing the Supreme Court’s decision in
. Second, the daughter of the original tenant, who resided with her mother, was a and her vitiated the suit. Third, documentary evidence such as the appellant’s Aadhaar card, electricity bill, and a rent receipt proved his residence and tenancy status, which the trial court erroneously disbelieved.
Respondent’s Counter:
The landlord’s counsel pointed to the appellant’s own cross-examination, where he admitted to being engaged in business—undermining any claim of on his wife. The appellant also admitted that his last vote was cast from a different address (9, Belilious Road, Howrah) and that all his documents, except the Aadhaar card, showed that address. He could not produce a single document showing his residence at the suit premises during his wife’s lifetime. The respondent argued that the daughter never asserted an independent right under Section 2(g), and the rent receipt produced by the appellant was unreliable.
Legal Analysis: Court’s Interpretation of “” and “”
The Court categorically rejected the appellant’s reliance on a legal textbook defining “” broadly. It held that the expression “” in Section 2(g) must be confined to a , aligning with recognised categories under succession laws.
“We cannot agree with the extreme proposition that the expression '' used in Section 2(g) can be stretched to such a limit that the dependency would traverse beyond the financial element of the same and also extend to a psychological or an extraneous element, completely divorced from the finances of the .”
The Court further observed:
“The term '', as understood in law, has either to be relatable to the categories of dependents as provided in the Succession Acts, for example the , or alternatively, has to have a to it.”
Since the appellant admitted to running a business, the ingredient of was not made out. On the second requirement of “ordinarily residing”, the Court noted that the appellant’s own admission that he cast his vote from a different premises and that his documents referenced that address disproved his claim. Even a would not suffice; requires some element of permanence.
“The appellant also admitted in his cross-examination that he did not file any document to show that he was residing in the suit premises during the lifetime of Madhuri Jaiswal, his spouse (the original tenant).”
The Court also dismissed the argument regarding deficient pleadings, holding that law need not be pleaded as long as foundational facts are disclosed. Both parties had led evidence on the issue, and the objection raised at the appellate stage was too belated.
“Insofar as the contention of the appellant, that the necessary ingredients of Section 2(g) of the 1997 Act were not pleaded by the plaintiff/respondent in the plaint, there is no statutory requirement to separately plead the ingredients as embodied in Section 2(g).”
The Bench further clarified that an Aadhaar card or electricity bill is not of residence, and before the do not confer . The daughter of the original tenant was not a as she never asserted her own tenancy claim.
Court’s Decision: Appeal Dismissed, Eviction Upheld
The found no merit in the appeal and dismissed it with costs. The judgment and decree of eviction passed by the learned Judge, Tenth Bench, in Title Suit No. 111 of 2022 were affirmed. The Court held that the appellant failed to satisfy any of the essential tests under . The ruling reinforces the principle that only those who are financially on a deceased tenant and ordinarily reside with them can claim tenancy protection.
