Jaspal Singh Chandhok vs Gobin Chand Seal

Headnote Court Copy Facts Arguments Court observation Judicial Analysis Case Map Category Hierarchy Table of Content

2025 Supreme(Cal) 298

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Arijit Banerjee, Om Narayan Rai, JJ.
Jaspal Singh Chandhok – Petitioner
Versus
Sri Gobin Chand Seal – Respondent
APOT 219 of 2024, CS 992 of 1986 IA No: GA 1 of 2024
Decided On : 11-09-2025

Important Points

A compromise decree creating a fresh tenancy must comply with statutory provisions governing eviction proceedings; execution of such a decree without adherence to the law is impermissible.

Subject

Property Law - Tenancy Law

Act Referred

WEST BENGAL PREMISES TENANCY ACT : S.12(a), S.13, S.13(4), S.2(g)
CONTRACT ACT : S.28
CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE : O.23 R.3, S.47

Headnote

(A) West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 - Indian Contract Act, 1872 - Execution case dismissed for being non-maintainable due to the creation of a fresh tenancy without a proper eviction proceeding - The original tenant had surrendered part of premises and was inducted in a new one under the terms of a compromise decree. Court held the earlier tenancy extinguished and the right to execution of decree for possession without fresh suit violated statutory provisions. (Paras 20, 22, 23, 24, 56, 58)

(B) Compromise Decree - Compromise indicating intention to create a fresh tenancy requires compliance with tenancy laws for eviction; execution not allowed if agreement contravenes statutory provisions. The Executing Court cannot ignore its statutory duties to determine the merits of default claims. (Paras 40, 46, 57)

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Swatarup Banerjee, Adv. Ms. Somali Mukhopadhyay, Adv.
For the Respondent: Mr. Anirban Kar, Adv., Mr. Parimal Bhattacharya, Adv., Mr. Munshi Ashiq Elahi, Adv., Mr. Sahidullah Mridha, Adv., Ms. Vedatri Bhattacharya, Adv., Ms. Snigdha Das, Adv., Mr. Rohit Mahato, Adv., Ms. Khushnuma Akhter Ansari, Adv.

Table of Content
1. summary of relevant factual background. (Para 2)
2. arguments by the appellant regarding the tenancy status and execution rights. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8)
3. arguments from the respondent challenging the execution process. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18)
4. court's analysis on the intention behind the compromise. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27)
5. court's examination of the legality of the compromise. (Para 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33)
6. discussion on the statutory defenses and their implications. (Para 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39)
7. evaluation of the acknowledgment of tenancy and compromise agreement. (Para 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46)
8. final observations on the nature of jurisdiction and enforceability. (Para 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56)
9. final decision on the maintainability of execution. (Para 58)
10. conclusion and directive for remedy. (Para 59)

JUDGMENT :

Om Narayan Rai, J.

1. The instant appeal takes exception to a judgment and order dated May 03, 2024 passed in Execution Case No. 364 of 2021 whereby the aforesaid Execution Case has been dismissed upon holding the same to be not maintainable.

FACTS:

2. Bereft of minute details, the essential facts leading to the present appeal are as follows:-

a) The respondent (i.e. the defendant in the suit) was a tenant under the appellant (i.e. the plaintiff in the suit) in respect of a shop room bearing no. 1A admeasuring about 1014 sq.ft. together with a porch at premises no. 30, Ganesh Chandra Avenue, Police Station- Bowbazar, Kolkata-700013.

b) The appellant herein instituted a suit being C.S. No. 922 of 1986 for eviction of the respondent from the said premises i.e. the said shop room bearing no. 1A.

c) The said suit was ultimately decreed on compromise on June 23, 2014. In terms of the settlement arrived at between the appellant and the respondent as aforesaid, the aforesaid shop room was surrendered by the respondent to the appellant and the respondent took possession of the shop room no. 1A/1 admeasuring about 507 sq.ft. (being the fifty percent of the shop room no. 1A) together with a wooden mezzanine floor at the ground floor at premises no. 30, Ganesh Chandra Avenue, Police Station - Bowbazar, Kolkata-700013.

d) In terms of the said compromise, the respondent-tenant was entitled to remain in occupation of the said shop room being shop room no. 1A/1 for a period of ten years and the appellant-landlord was precluded from terminating the tenancy prior to the expiry of the said period of ten years unless the terms and conditions stipulated in the settlement as also the grounds provided in the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 were violated by the respondent-tenant.

e) Alleging that the respondent had defaulted in payment of the rent in terms of the compromise decree the appellant put the decree dated June 23, 2014 into execution by filing an execution case being E.C. No.364 of 2021 before expiry of the said period of ten years.

f) The said execution case was contested by the respondent inter alia on the ground that since the respondent had been inducted in shop room no. 1A/1 afresh upon the respondent surrendering his earlier tenancy in respect of shop room no. 1A, therefore, the same gave rise to a fresh cause of action and the respondent could not be evicted by the appellant without instituting a fresh suit for eviction.

g) The respondent’s contention weighed with the Hon’ble Single Judge and the Hon’ble Single Judge was pleased to dismiss the execution case being E.C. No. 364 of 2021 by a judgment and order dated May 03, 2024.

h) Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order dated May 03, 2024 the appellant has approached this Court by filing the present appeal.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT:-

3. Mr. Banerjee, learned Advocate appearing for the appellant submitted that the Hon’ble Single Judge has failed to appreciate that the tenancy which formed the subject matter of the suit was in respect of