NCLT & NCLAT Can't Decide Tenancy Rights, Civil Courts Have Exclusive Jurisdiction: Calcutta High Court

The Calcutta High Court on 29 July held that the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) and National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) cannot decide tenancy rights. Only civil courts can adjudicate such disputes.

A Division Bench of Justices Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya and Supratim Bhattacharya dismissed the review petition filed by D & I Taxcon Services Pvt. Ltd. and upheld the eviction decree passed against the company after holding that it occupied the disputed premises as a licensee and not as a tenant. The judges observed:

“...the NCLT or the NCLAT does not have the jurisdiction in law to adjudicate tenancy rights of an entity. It is exclusively within the domain of the Civil Court that a declaration in that regard lies.”

The dispute arose from an eviction suit filed by Radhika Singh against D & I Taxcon Services Pvt. Ltd. after Singh purchased the disputed property during liquidation proceedings. Singh claimed that Taxcon Services occupied the premises only as a licensee, while the company claimed tenancy rights over the property.

The Trial Court initially dismissed the eviction suit. However, the High Court, while hearing Singh's appeal, reversed the decision on 9 December 2025 and granted eviction after holding that Taxcon Services was a licensee and not a tenant.

Taxcon Services filed the review petition challenging the appellate judgment. It argued that the Trial Court proceeded with the matter ex parte without ensuring proper notice of the peremptory hearing. It also contended that orders passed by the NCLT and NCLAT recorded that it was a tenant paying rent and that such observations should bind Singh, who purchased the property. It further argued that pending proceedings challenging the liquidation sale and a demolition order affected Singh's claim over the premises. It also relied on orders granting repairs and restoration of electricity to contend that the authorities had recognised its tenancy rights. Singh opposed the review petition.

The Division Bench rejected the review plea, holding that the absence of a separate notice of the peremptory hearing did not invalidate the proceedings. It observed that Taxcon Services failed to appear before the trial court despite opportunity and that the ex parte proceedings did not prejudice the company. It also held that the observations in the NCLT and NCLAT proceedings regarding tenancy were based on Taxcon Services' own admissions and did not amount to any independent determination of tenancy rights. It held:

“Thus, not only was the context of the said observations different from the present lis, but the admissions were attributed to none else than the review applicant itself and cannot bind the present opposite party/decree holder and/or debar the opposite party from obtaining a decree of eviction of the review applicant as a licensee as owner of the property, having stepped into the shoes of the erstwhile owner by dint of purchase.”

The judges reiterated that the NCLT and NCLAT lack jurisdiction to determine tenancy rights, as only civil courts can decide whether a party has a valid tenancy. They further held that orders passed under Sections 27 and 36 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, which empower authorities to deal with repairs and restoration of essential amenities, do not conclusively determine whether a person is a tenant.

They observed that “an order passed under the said provisions is by no stretch of imagination a conclusive determination on the issue as to whether the applicant is a tenant or not.”

The Bench rejected Taxcon Services' reliance on pending proceedings challenging the liquidation sale and the demolition order, holding that such proceedings did not affect the validity of the eviction decree passed against a licensee. It reaffirmed its earlier finding that Taxcon Services occupied the premises as a licensee and was liable to eviction.

Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the review petition and upheld the appellate judgment and eviction decree dated 9 December 2025. It also dismissed the writ petition arising from the Rent Controller proceedings as infructuous since the eviction decree had already been upheld and the review petition had been rejected.

For Applicants: Advocates Tapas Datta & Mritunjoy Halder

For Respondents: Senior Advocate Abhrajit Mitra with Advocates Suddhasatva Banerjee, Sarvapriya Mukherjee, Sourojit Dasgupta & Dipendra Nath Chunder