Mere deposit of rent does not prove landlord-tenant relationship, says High Court

Kolkata: In a case relating to dispossession from property, the Calcutta High Court in its judgement observed that mere deposit of rent before Rent Controller does not prove existence of landlord-tenant relationship.

The Bench of Chief Justice T S Sivagnanam and Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharya was hearing a case wherein the petitioner appealed to the writ court to direct police to restore status quo ante by giving appellants back the possession of the said property.

The writ petition was filed alleging police inaction and/or over action.

The petitioner was allegedly forcefully dispossessed from the property. The petitioner was a lessee of one education trust which allegedly did not renew the lease for the property after it expired in 1981. However, the appellant party continued to use the premises, for which it claims to have paid rent and municipal taxes.

Lately, one of the appellants learnt that another

party purchased the property from the owners by virtue of four registered deeds of conveyance executed in May 2024. The appellants alleged that the private respondents committed criminal trespass, theft, attempt to murder and criminal intimidation on May 17 and a complaint was lodged on May 18 at the concerned police station. Another complaint was lodged on May 25 alleging criminal trespass, theft and illegal demolition of the office room.

A Single Bench had earlier disposed of their petition, directing the police to keep strict vigil over the property and ensure no illegal activity takes place and no damage is caused.

This led the appellants to approach a writ court. The state counsel contended that the appellants could have approached the civil court since writ court is not the proper forum for adjudication of the issue of alleged dispossession. The court observed that mere deposit of rent before the Rent Controller does not prove existence of landlord tenant relationship. Further, the appellant party should have sought relief under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act.

No substance was found by the court in allegations against police. It was concluded that in this case the alleged dispossession of a private party from an immovable property is by a party who is not a “State” within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India.

“Such a dispute is entirely a private dispute between the appellant and the private respondents which is civil in nature.” Court held that the learned Single Judge was right in rejecting the prayer of the appellant for

restoration of possession.