Tenant Cannot Evade Eviction By Avoiding Notice; 'Not Claimed' Postal Endorsement Deemed Valid Service: Calcutta High Court

The Calcutta High Court has upheld concurrent eviction decrees passed in favour of a landlord, reiterating that a registered ejectment notice returned with the postal endorsement “not claimed” amounts to valid service, and that a reasonably foreseeable future requirement of the landlord constitutes bona fide need under the rent control law.

Dismissing the second appeal, Justice Sugato Majumdar held that courts must assess the reasonableness of the claim and not insist on an immediate or existing necessity, observing that a genuine, foreseeable requirement cannot be defeated merely because it arises in the near future.

The eviction suit had been filed against the heirs of an original tenant occupying a ground-floor shop room from which a grocery business was run. The landlord pleaded that the premises were old and dilapidated and were required for rebuilding and for starting a business after the landlady's husband's impending retirement. A quit notice was sent by registered post but returned “not claimed”. Both the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court held the notice validly served and decreed eviction.

Before the High Court, the tenants argued that the landlord's need was speculative and not immediate, that service of notice was defective, and that the decree was a nullity since one defendant had died during the suit without substitution. Rejecting these contentions, the Court held that future requirement, if reasonably foreseeable, squarely falls within the ambit of bona fide requirement. It observed that what the law contemplates is a reasonable and genuine need, not a “fantastic or exaggerated” claim.

On the issue of service, the Court relied on the ruling of the Supreme Court of India in Wazir Jaivir Chand's case (Madan & Co. v. Wazir Jaivir Chand), reiterating that where a properly addressed registered notice is returned unserved or “not claimed”, service must be presumed. It reasoned that tenants cannot avoid legal consequences by deliberately evading postal delivery.

The Court also rejected the plea that the decree was void due to the death of one defendant. Referring to Suresh Kumar Kohli's case (Suresh Kumar Kohli v. Rakesh Jain), it noted that legal heirs inherit tenancy as joint tenants, and eviction proceedings against one or more joint tenants bind all. Since other heirs were already on record, the suit did not abate.

Finding no perversity or legal error in the concurrent findings of the lower courts, the High Court declined interference in second appeal. The tenants were directed to hand over possession within sixty days, failing which the landlord was permitted to initiate execution and seek mesne profits.

Case: Sanjay Agarwal & Ors. Vs. Rita Deb

Case No: CAN/12/2026

Click here to read order