RAJESH MITRA @ RAJESH KUMAR MITRA & ANR. versus KARNANI PROPERTIES LTD.

Citation: [2024] 9 S.C.R. 644 · Decided: 20-09-2024 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SUDHANSHU DHULIA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 9 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2024] 9 S.C.R. 644 : 2024 INSC 719
Rajesh Mitra @ Rajesh Kumar Mitra & Anr. 
v. 
Karnani Properties Ltd.
(Civil Appeal No(s). 3593-3594 of 2024)
20 September 2024
[Sudhanshu Dhulia* and Prasanna B. Varale, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Whether the appellants-children of the original tenant had also 
became tenants upon the death of their father, by virtue of  
s.2(h) of the old Act-West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956; 
and whether the 1997 Act would cover such tenants who were 
protected under the 1956 Act.
Headnotes†
West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 – s.2(h) – West 
Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 – s.2(g) – Death of the 
original tenant in the year 1970, before the commencement 
of 1997 Act-prior to July 10, 2001 – Devolution of tenancy on 
the tenant’s widow and the appellants, children who were 
minor at the time of his death – Eviction suit by respondent-
landlord – Application u/Ord. XII r.6 by the respondent seeking 
a ‘judgment on admission’ by relying on the deposition of the 
appellant, in another case where the appellant had admitted 
that the tenancy was in his mother’s name – Case of the 
respondent that since the mother died in 2009, the appellants 
not entitled to stay in the premises beyond the year 2014 in 
terms of s.2(g) of the 1997 Act, which protects the rights of 
the children and dependents of a tenant only for a limited 
period of five years – Case of the tenant that the tenancy was 
heritable as per s.2(h) of the 1956 Act, which was then in force, 
thus, could not be evicted based on the New Act; and that the 
appellants along with their mother had become tenants on the 
property in 1970 on the death of their father – Suit decreed by 
the trial court directing the tenant to vacate the suit property 
and hand over the possession to the respondent – Single 
Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court decreed the 
suit of the landlord on the basis of alleged admission by the 
appellant in another matter – Correctness: 
* Author
[2024] 9 S.C.R. 
645
Rajesh Mitra @ Rajesh Kumar Mitra & Anr. v. 
Karnani Properties Ltd.
Held: Courts below ought not to have decreed the suit of the 
landlord on the basis of alleged “admission” by the appellant made 
in another unconnected matter – It does not pass muster the test 
of “admission” visualised in Ord. XII r.6 – Question and its answer 
are both mixed question of fact and law, a so called ‘admission’ 
against the law can never be an “admission” as visualised u/Ord. 
XII r.6 – It is not a ‘clear admission’ as is being made out – What 
has been given to the appellants under law cannot be taken 
away on the basis of an unclear deposition – There cannot be 
an admission against law – Furthermore, enforcement of a new 
statute ipso facto will not take away the rights already accrued 
under a repealed statute, unless this intention is reflected in the 
new statute – Courts can, and must, differ from the literal meaning 
of words if the reading of any provision provides absurd results – 
Ambiguous drafting leads to manifold problems and generates 
lengthy litigations – There is no clarity in the 1997 Act to suggest 
that it extinguishes the rights of all tenants, who inherited tenancy 
rights under Old Act retrospectively – Statutory laws operate from 
the date of their enforcement i.e., prospectively – In case the 
legislature intends to make law retrospective then such an intention 
of legislature must be shown clearly and unambiguously in the 
statute itself – Division Bench’s mere interpretation of a statutory 
provision will not make the law retrospective and take away the 
heritable rights of a tenant – Mother and the appellants jointly 
inherited the tenancy from the father, in the year 1970 – Thus, the 
impugned judgment liable to be set aside as appellants’ tenancy 
did not expire in the year 2006, by the introduction of 1997 Act, in 
the absence of a clear and unequivocal intention in the 1997 Act to 
have a retrospective operation – Orders of the Single Judge and 
the Division Bench set aside – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – 
Ord. XII r.6 – Interpretation of statutes. [Paras 17-22]
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Ord. XII r.6 – Judgment on 
admission’ – Invocation of Ord. XII r.6, when: 
Held: It is not that a court cannot pass a judgment on the basis of 
an admission made in some other case – All the same, it has to 
be kept in mind that Ord. XII r.6 is an enabling provision conferring 
wide discretionary powers on the courts which can

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.