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 and cannot be extended to include psychological or other considerations wholly divorced from financial dependence. A Division Bench comprising Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya and Justice Sandip Kumar De made this observation while dismissing an appeal filed by Ashok Jaiswal against an eviction decree concerning premises earlier tenanted by his deceased wife, Madhuri Jaiswal.
The Bench 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. It stated that it could not agree with the proposition that the term 'dependent' in Section 2(g) could be stretched beyond the financial element to include psychological or extraneous aspects completely detached from finances. The Court observed that in law, the term 'dependent' either relates to recognised categories of dependants under succession laws or involves a financial context where dependence is 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 financial dependence on his deceased wife. The Bench further noted that the appellant had admitted 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 producing no document showing residence in the suit premises during his wife's lifetime. Consequently, the Court concluded that the ingredient of dependence on the spouse was not made out at all.
The Bench also 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 further clarified that an Aadhaar Card or electricity bill cannot conclusively establish residence, and unilateral deposits of rent before the Rent Controller cannot create tenancy rights where none otherwise exist.
Regarding the daughter of the original tenant, the Bench held that she was not a necessary party, as she had appeared only as a witness and had never independently asserted a right to tenancy under Section 2(g). The Court affirmed the eviction decree passed by the City Civil Court, Calcutta, and dismissed the appeal.
The case is Ashok Jaiswal v. Amalendu Kumar Nandi, F.A. 97 of 2026.
This ruling underscores the Court's insistence on a financially grounded interpretation of dependency under tenancy legislation, limiting the scope of succession-based tenancy claims to those substantiated by material support rather than emotional or relational ties alone.