The Calcutta High Court has reaffirmed that, while even a trespasser cannot be evicted without due process of law, this principle cannot be invoked to secure an injunction against the true owner once the source of possession (such as an expired lease) is no longer valid. This decision upholds established precedent and provides binding authority for courts in West Bengal on the limits of possessory remedies in tenancy and property disputes.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | FMA/1562/2025 of ASIF AHMED AND ANR Vs MAYA CHUNDER AND ORS |
| CNR | WBCHCA0371242025 |
| Date of Registration | 07-08-2025 |
| 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 |
| Precedent Value | Binding (within jurisdiction of Calcutta High Court) |
| Type of Law | Property Law, Civil Procedure |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi |
The court reasserted that while “even a trespasser cannot be evicted without due process of law,” this maxim cannot entitle a trespasser or one claiming through an expired lease to an injunction against the true owner. Once the original lease has expired, any claim to possession by a person through that lease is extinguished; such a person cannot claim further protection by way of interim injunction against the lawful owner. There is no illegality if the interim injunction is refused in such circumstances. The court’s refusal is without prejudice to the merits of the underlying suit. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
The appellants were sub-tenants claiming under a lessee whose original lease with the owner had expired. After the expiry, the respondents (owners) sought eviction. The appellants filed suit and sought an ad interim injunction to protect their possession based on Clause 7 of the parent lease. The trial court refused the injunction, and the appellate court upheld this refusal, finding the appellants had no subsisting right after lease expiry. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts within the jurisdiction of the Calcutta High Court |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts and tribunals in India |
| Follows | Follows settled law that “even a trespasser cannot be evicted without due process,” but clarifies the limits thereof |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Clarifies that a sub-tenant or person claiming possession merely through a now-expired lease cannot secure possessory injunction against a true owner.
- Reaffirms the limit to the maxim that “even a trespasser cannot be evicted without due process of law”; such principle does not create a right to injunction in favour of someone with no subsisting legal right.
- Establishes clear precedent that trial courts may refuse ad interim injunctions to persons whose very right of possession has extinguished due to expiry of the underlying lease.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The court recognized the settled law that even a trespasser cannot be evicted except by due process, but clarified this cannot be used to entitle such a person to an injunction when opposed by the true owner.
- The appellants’ right to possession was derived solely through a lessee whose lease had expired. The court emphasized the legal maxim that “one cannot give more than what one has”; hence, when the lessee’s right was extinguished, so too was any derivative right of the appellants.
- Refusal of ad interim injunction was held lawful since there was no prima facie right to possession after the head lease expired.
- The order is expressly limited to the interim relief, and the trial court is free to decide the main suit on merits.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Appellants):
- Asserted their status as sub-tenants deriving title through the original lessee.
- Relied on Clause 7 of the parent lease deed to argue they had authority to remain.
- Contended that irrespective of their status, even a trespasser cannot be evicted without due process of law.
- Argued that the trial court had no jurisdiction to refuse interim injunction protection for their possession.
Respondent (Owners):
- Sought eviction after the original lease expired.
- Contended that the appellants’ right to possession was extinguished with the lease’s expiry.
Factual Background
The appellants were sub-tenants in a property, asserting their right to occupy under a clause in the parent lease between the owner and a lessee. Upon expiry of the parent lease, the respondents (owners) initiated efforts to evict the appellants, leading the appellants to file a suit seeking an ad interim injunction to protect their possession. The trial court refused the injunction, and the appellate court was called upon to examine the propriety and legality of that refusal.
Statutory Analysis
- The court referred to well-established legal principles and did not undertake detailed statutory interpretation. However, Order XLI Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure was invoked for dismissing the appeal at the admissions stage.
- The principle that a person’s right to possession ends with the expiry of the underlying lease formed the basis of the court’s legal analysis.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No separate dissenting or concurring opinions were delivered by the bench; the decision was unanimous.
Procedural Innovations
No new procedural rules or innovations were stated in the judgment. However, the court did clarify that its findings were restricted to the interim (ad interim) stage and did not affect the ultimate merits of the underlying suit before the trial court.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The decision reaffirms and clarifies the established law on the limits of possessory protection and when injunctions may or may not be granted in landlord-tenant disputes where the foundational lease has expired.