Family members can’t hold on to tenancy indefinitely: Calcutta HC

Soumyadip Mullick,MP, Kolkata, 23 Mar 2026 : The Calcutta High Court has ruled that tenancy rights inherited by family members are not perpetual, ordering the eviction of a man from a flat in south Kolkata after finding his continued occupation to be without legal backing.

Justice Ravi Krishan Kapur held that statutory protection for heirs is time-bound and that the occupant’s possession became “unauthorised and illegal” after the death of both the original tenant and his widow.

The dispute concerns a residential flat on Clarke Street, where the tenancy originated in 1970 when a partnership firm was inducted as the tenant. After the firm dissolved, its partners occupied separate portions, with one surrendering his share while the other retained possession of the remaining portion.

The partner who retained possession continued as a tenant until he died in 2004, after which his widow and son remained in occupation. The widow enjoyed protection until she died in 2021, after which the son continued to occupy the flat, prompting the landlord to file a suit on the ground that the tenancy had extinguished by operation of law.

The High Court found that a son inheriting tenancy as a dependent family member can remain in possession only for five years from the tenant’s death, subject to statutory conditions. In this case, that protection expired in 2009. The court noted that no fresh tenancy had been created in favour of the son and that no rent or occupation charges had been paid since 2010 despite continued possession.

Rejecting the defence, including a plea of adverse possession, the court held that such claims were contradictory to the occupant’s admission of inheriting the tenancy and lacked legal merit in the facts of the case.

Setting aside the trial court’s order, the High Court observed that the material facts were clear and did not require a full trial, warning against delays in property disputes and unnecessary prolongation of litigation.

Allowing the landlord’s plea, the court directed the trial court to pass a decree for eviction and recovery of possession, with mesne profits and costs to be decided separately in accordance with law.