A court may exercise its discretionary power to grant a summary decree for eviction when the statutory period governing the occupancy rights of a deceased tenant's heirs has expired, and clear admissions in the pleadings render a full-fledged trial regarding the right to possess the premises unnecessary.

JUDGMENT :

Ravi Krishan Kapur, J.

1. This revisional application arises out of an order dated 23 April 2025 passed by the Learned Civil Judge, (Junior Division), 2nd Additional Court at Alipore, South 24 Parganas in Title Suit No. 1676 of 2023. By the impugned order, an application under Order 12 Rule 6 read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by the plaintiff/petitioner has been dismissed.

2. The suit is for eviction and mesne profits. The suit premises comprises of a residential flat situated in the heart of South Kolkata on the northern portion of the second floor of premises no. 7 Clarke Street, Kolkata- 700026 which consists of two bedrooms, one dining room, one hall, one kitchen and two bathrooms.

3. Initially, the petitioner’s mother one Subarna Mitra since deceased as the original landlord had by a letter dated November 21 1970 inducted M/s. Kapoor and Chawla at a monthly rent of Rs. 650/- and Rs. 250/- (for other facilities and fittings) respectively to the entirety of the second floor of the suit premises. In or about 1999, the partnership firm stood dissolved and both the partners Pradip Kapoor and Suresh Chawla respectively became independent tenants in respect of the entirety of the second floor of the premises (i.e. northern and southern portion). The southern portion being occupied by Pradip Kapoor and the northern portion by Suresh Chawla.

4. Later, Pradip Kapoor surrendered his tenancy in favour of the petitioner. On 29 November 2004, Suresh Chawla died intestate leaving behind his wife and son. The wife of Suresh Chawla, Karishma Chawla died in 2021. Her son being the sole defendant herein continues to reside in the suit premises even after her death. In this background, this suit has been filed on the ground that under section 2(g) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997, the statutory protection to the respondent son expired in 2009 and the petitioner became entitled to a decree for eviction. Upon filing of the suit, the respondent entered appearance and filed the written statement and counterclaim denying the case of the petitioner.

5. The primary ground for resisting the application for judgment and admission is that in a prior suit filed before the Learned 2nd Civil Judge, Junior Division for eviction of the respondent and his mother it was held that the defendants were tenants under the petitioner and not licensees.

6. By the impugned judgment, it has been held that from the pleadings and other materials on record, it could not be seen that there was a clear and unequivocal admission that the petitioner was entitled to the suit premises under section 2(g) of the Act. It was further held that the respondent had asserted his own rights in respect of the suit premises. It was contended that from the materials and pleadings on record, the right of the respondent to assert his tenancy could only be decided after trial.

7. For convenience, section 2(g) of the 1997 Act reads as follows:

“2(g) "tenant" means any person by whom or on whose account or behalf the rent of any premises is or, but for a special contract, would be payable, and includes any person continuing in possession after termination of his tenancy and, in the event of death of any tenant, also includes, for a period not exceeding five years from the date of death of such tenant or from the date of coming into force of this Act, whichever is