Admitted Tenant’s Possession Doesn’t Become Adverse Just Because Landlord Heirs Didn’t Demand Rent, Calcutta HC Upholds Rejection of Claim

The respondents brought eviction suits against the appellant.

The appellant filed counterclaims seeking a declaration that he was in bona fide adverse possession of the suit premises.

The counterclaims stated that the appellant’s father had been a tenant and that, after his father’s death, the appellant remained in occupation; they also referred to the appellant’s participation in building expenses with other tenants or occupiers.

The counterclaims alleged that the appellant’s possession became adverse because the original landlord’s heirs did not claim rent or possession rights.

The Trial Court rejected the counterclaims under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) for failure to disclose a cause of action.

The appellant appealed.

Order VII Rule 11 CPC permits rejection of a claim that, on a comprehensive and meaningful reading of its pleadings, does not disclose a cause of action.

A person’s entry into possession as a tenant does not, by itself, become adverse merely because rent is neither paid nor demanded; the character of possession must be assessed in light of the circumstances of induction and the pleaded basis on which possession became hostile to the true owner.

No precedent was cited.

The counterclaims admitted that the appellant’s father was a tenant and asserted that the appellant continued in occupation after his father’s death.

They also described the appellant as a tenant and referred to shared contributions towards property tax and building maintenance.

The pleaded basis for adverse possession was only that the landlord’s heirs had not demanded rent or asserted possession rights.

The Court held that these assertions did not disclose when or how the appellant’s possession became hostile to the true owner; the absence of rent demands could not, without more, transform possession originating in tenancy into adverse possession.

The Trial Court therefore correctly rejected the counterclaims under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.

It also dismissed the connected applications, made no order as to costs, and directed that formal decrees be drawn up.