Authority: High Court at Calcutta (Civil Appellate Jurisdiction)

Order Date: 16 September 2026

Case Overview

  • Parties: Appellants – Smt. Anindita Chowdhury & Ors.; Respondents – Gouri Shankar Pal & Ors.
  • Appeal No.: APD No. 14 of 2025, arising from CS No. 279 of 2002.
  • Original suit (CS 279/2002) sought recovery of khas possession of premises No. 124A, Acharya Jagadish Chandra Bose Road, Kolkata, and a decree for Rs 1,34,16,000/- mesne profits for wrongful occupation up to 24 June 2002.
  • Lease history: Original lease dated 17 May 1946 for 30 years (expired 17 May 1976). Renewal letter dated 7 June 1976 extended tenancy for 17 years (until 14 April 1993) at Rs 1,475 per month; no registered deed executed for renewal; rent last accepted March 1993.
  • Lower Court (Single Judge) dismissed the suit on the ground that the tenancy continued month‑to‑month and no Section 106 notice had been served, thus no cause of action.
  • Appellants argued that filing an eviction suit itself constitutes a notice to quit, relying on Nopany Investments (P) Ltd. v. Santokh Singh (HUF) (2008) SCC 728 and a Coordinate Division Bench judgment in M/s. Xclusive Inn Private Limited & Ors. v. Anjana Guha & Ors. (FAT 270 of 2023).
  • Respondents contended lack of Section 106 notice, death of one defendant without substitution, and alleged merger of the suit property with an adjoining parcel whose owner was not impleaded.

Legal Reasoning

  • The Court affirmed the ratio of Nopany Investments that filing an eviction suit under general law is itself a notice to quit; therefore, the absence of a separate Section 106 notice does not invalidate the suit.
  • The Division Bench decision in M/s. Xclusive Inn was held binding, reinforcing that the suit’s institution determines the tenancy.
  • Regarding the deceased defendant, Order XXII Rule 4 CPC permits proceeding without substitution when the deceased did not file a statement and no separate relief was sought against him; the contention was rejected.
  • The alleged merger of the suit property was deemed immaterial as the landlord‑tenant relationship was admitted; non‑impleadment of the adjoining‑property owner was rejected.

Final Outcome

  • The appellate court set aside the Single Judge’s decree of dismissal.
  • It held that the tenancy was determined at the filing of the suit; the defendants thereafter occupied as tenants at sufferance, liable for mesne profits.
  • The suit is decreed in part: appellants are entitled to a decree for recovery of khas possession against all defendants and persons claiming through them.
  • An enquiry into mesne profits is ordered under Order XX of CPC; the quantum cannot be ascertained from the present record.
  • Mr. Sarosij Dasgupta is appointed Special Referee to conduct the mesne‑profit enquiry and submit a report before the Trial Court; his remuneration to be fixed by the Single Judge.
  • The decree for possession is executable immediately; the mesne‑profit enquiry proceeds concurrently.
  • CS No. 279 of 2002 is remanded to the Trial Court for the mesne‑profit enquiry.
  • All pending connected applications, if any, are disposed of.

Topics: Eviction Law, Lease Determination, Mesne Profits