The Calcutta High Court reiterates that in disputes relating to tenancy or license, the party asserting that the jural relationship has ended, or that the tenant/licensee has been dispossessed, bears the burden of proof. This judgment upholds established precedent, affirms interim relief jurisprudence, and serves as binding authority within West Bengal, especially regarding ad interim orders in landlord-tenant litigation.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | FMA/1399/2025 of MR.ANAND SINGH @ GUDDU Vs MS. KAJAL AND ANR. |
| CNR | WBCHCA0390582025 |
| Date of Registration | 18-08-2025 |
| Decision Date | 28-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE JUSTICE SABYASACHI BHATTACHARYYA, HON’BLE JUSTICE UDAY KUMAR |
| Court | Calcutta High Court |
| Bench | Division Bench: Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, Justice Uday Kumar |
| Precedent Value | Binding within Calcutta High Court jurisdiction for interim relief orders |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms existing law and established evidentiary principles |
| Type of Law | Civil procedural law; Evidence law; Landlord-tenant and license law |
| Questions of Law | Which party bears the burden of proof to show end of jural relationship or dispossession? |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The court held that within the law of evidence in India, the burden to prove termination of the jural relationship between landlord/tenant or licensor/licensee, or dispossession of the alleged tenant/licensee from the premises, lies on the party asserting such cessation. The existence of a rent agreement giving possession established prima facie tenancy, even if expired, thus shifting the evidentiary burden to the party alleged to have ended the relationship. The court further observed that an ad interim order of status quo is a plausible exercise of judicial discretion at the interim stage and should not be disturbed absent gross error. Dates of the underlying agreements and subsequent events must be appropriately pleaded and proven by the party alleging dispossession or cessation. The judgment is limited to interim relief and does not conclusively decide title, tenancy rights, or possession on merits. |
| Judgments Relied Upon | Referenced “well-settled” law of evidence in India (no specific citations named) |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | Principles of burden of proof in jural relationships; ad interim injunction jurisprudence |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
Plaintiff alleged tenancy and possession under a rent agreement and sought protection by way of status quo; defendant denied ongoing tenancy, claimed license was limited to a musical band, and argued termination. Court noted agreement showed prima facie tenancy and status quo order was passed at the ad interim stage. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts within Calcutta High Court jurisdiction |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts and courts deciding interlocutory relief in tenancy/licensee disputes |
| Follows | Established law that burden of proof of cessation of jural relationship rests on the party making such assertion |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- The judgment affirms that if a rent agreement shows prima facie possession, expiry of term does not automatically shift possession; the party alleging termination or dispossession must prove it.
- Filing of a subsequent agreement with a third party is not, by itself, proof of dispossession of the earlier tenant/licensee.
- Status quo orders at the ad interim stage, based on available pleadings and documents, are a discretionary remedy, and appellate courts are slow to interfere absent error.
- Lawyers should ensure documentary clarity and direct evidence before claiming automatic cessation of tenancy or license.
- Submissions regarding the non-renewal of tenancy or licensing must be backed by cogent proof of physical dispossession and end of relationship.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The division bench examined the rent agreement dated September 25, 2024, and found it established, at least prima facie, not merely a license to use but a right to possess the property.
- The court emphasized that, by settled law, the burden falls on the party asserting cessation of a landlord-tenant or licensor-licensee relationship (here, the appellant/defendant) to prove termination or dispossession.
- The subsequent license agreement with a third party, produced by the appellant, did not by itself establish physical dispossession of the plaintiff or end of tenancy.
- The trial court’s ad interim status quo order was found to be based on a plausible appreciation of facts and evidence at that stage.
- The appellate court declined to interfere with the exercise of judicial discretion at the interim stage, particularly in absence of manifest error.
- It was made clear that the observations are confined to the interim stage and do not prejudice merits or the final outcome of the suit.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Appellant/Defendant no.1):
- Liberty was granted to file a written objection to the injunction application, yet an ad interim status quo was granted.
- The appellant claimed to possess documents showing the respondent had already been dispossessed.
- Argued that the license given to the plaintiff was limited to running a musical band, not possession of the premises.
- Submitted a subsequent leave and license agreement with a third party as evidence that the prior relationship had ended.
Respondent (Plaintiff):
- Asserted tenancy in the suit property by virtue of a rent agreement.
- Sought protection of possession through declaration and injunction.
- Alleged continuing possession and denied dispossession.
Factual Background
The respondent claimed to be a tenant of a restaurant-cum-bar property under a rent agreement dated September 25, 2024. Dispute arose when the appellant allegedly sought to interfere with her possession or claimed that she had already been dispossessed. The plaintiff filed for declaration of tenancy and protection of possession, along with interim injunction. The trial court granted ad interim status quo to protect possession. The appellant challenged this order, arguing that the tenancy had ended and the premises had been licensed to a third party.
Statutory Analysis
The judgment centered on core evidentiary principles under Indian law, particularly regarding the burden of proof in landlord-tenant and licensor-licensee disputes. It referenced the Code of Civil Procedure’s provisions on injunctive relief, specifically Order XLI Rule 11 for appellate intervention during interim stages. No detailed statutory interpretation or reading down was conducted; instead, the court applied established norms regarding proof of jural relationship cessation and possessory claims.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or separate concurring opinions were rendered; the judgment is a unanimous decision by the division bench.
Procedural Innovations
- Defendant/appellant to file written objection within two weeks.
- Trial court to decide the interim injunction within four weeks from such objection.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The court expressly affirmed established principles regarding the burden of proof and judicial discretion in interim relief, without overruling or departing from past precedent.