'Dependent' Under WB Tenancy Act Must Have Financial Element; Psychological Dependence Not Enough: Calcutta High Court
The Calcutta High Court has held that the expression “dependent” under Section 2(g) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 must be understood in a financial context, ruling that dependency cannot be stretched to include psychological or other considerations completely divorced from financial dependence.A Division Bench comprising Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya and Justice...
The Calcutta High Court has held that the expression “dependent” under Section 2(g) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 must be understood in a financial context, ruling that dependency cannot be stretched to include psychological or other considerations completely divorced from financial dependence.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya and Justice Sandip Kumar De made the observation while dismissing an appeal filed by Ashok Jaiswal, who challenged an eviction decree concerning premises earlier tenanted by his deceased wife, Madhuri Jaiswal.
The Court rejected the appellant's argument that he qualified as a tenant under Section 2(g) merely because he was dependent on and had been residing with his wife.
“We cannot agree with the extreme proposition that the expression 'dependent' used in Section 2(g) can be stretched to such a limit that the dependency would traverse beyond the financial element of the same and also extend to a psychological or an extraneous element, completely divorced from the finances of the dependent,” the Bench held.
The Court observed that the term “dependent”, in law, either has to relate to recognised categories of dependants under succession laws or have a financial context involving dependence for financial support.
In the present case, the appellant had admitted during cross-examination that he was engaged in business. The Court therefore held that he had failed to establish that he was financially dependent on his deceased wife.
The Bench also noted that the appellant had admitted that his last vote was cast from another address and that, apart from his Aadhaar Card, his documents showed his address at 9, Belilious Road, Howrah. He had also admitted that he had produced no document showing that he resided in the suit premises during his wife's lifetime.
“Thus, the ingredient of dependence on the spouse was not made out at all,” the Court said.
The Bench further rejected the appellant's contention that “ordinarily resided” under Section 2(g) did not require permanent residence. It held that even if permanent residence was not necessary, ordinary residence required some element of permanence and could not be established by a stray visit or occasional stay.
The Court also held that the daughter of the original tenant was not a necessary party, as she had appeared as a witness but had never independently asserted a right to tenancy under Section 2(g).
The Bench further clarified that an Aadhaar Card or electricity bill cannot conclusively establish residence, while unilateral deposits of rent before the Rent Controller cannot create tenancy rights where none otherwise exist.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court affirmed the eviction decree passed by the City Civil Court, Calcutta.
Case Details: Ashok Jaiswal v. Amalendu Kumar Nandi
Case No: F.A. 97 of 2026