The Court Would Not Let A Lessee Draft His Way Into Perpetual Title
A shopkeeper with a 99-year lease sued to have the building's later sale declared void and his rights declared permanent. The plaint was thrown out at the threshold, and the High Court agreed.
The Court held the plaint was an evident effort to artificially expand a leasehold into perpetual, indefeasible title. The lease ran for 99 years, at most renewable for another 99 — limited, not perpetual. The claim was contrary to the Transfer of Property Act and to the lease itself, disclosed no real cause of action, and was rightly rejected under Order VII Rule 11.
- A lease has an end date, even a very long one.
- Clever drafting fails — courts look past pleadings that create an illusion of a cause of action.
- Connected reliefs fall together; the plaint could not be rejected only in part.
- Rejection at the threshold spares everyone a trial on a claim that cannot succeed.
- Court
- High Court at Calcutta
- Bench
- Justice HON'BLE JUSTICE SABYASACHI BHATTACHARYYA, Justice HON'BLE JUSTICE SANDIP KUMAR DE
- Citation
- FA No. 65 of 2026
- Case
- FA No. 65 of 2026
- Decided
- 9 September 2026
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed; rejection of plaint affirmed
The suit
The appellant held a registered 99-year lease from 2012 over premises in Alipore, where he ran a business. In 2023 the property was sold to another person.
He sued for declarations that he had every right to hold, enjoy and possess the property and to run his business undisturbed, that the 2023 sale deed was void, and for injunctions. The trial court rejected the plaint in January 2026.
Why the plaint could not survive
The reliefs were not disconnected; all rested on the premise that the lease conferred perpetual and indefeasible title. That, the Court said, was an evident effort to artificially expand the leasehold right beyond its ambit.
The lease was for 99 years. At best there was a right to renew for another 99. Even then the tenure would be limited in time, not perpetual. The right claimed was palpably contrary to the scheme of the Transfer of Property Act and to the lease deed the appellant himself relied on.
Even leaving aside a pending eviction suit, the plaint disclosed no clear right to sue and its claim of title was contrary to law, so it was liable to rejection under clauses (a) and (d) of Order VII Rule 11. Following T. Arivandandam, it was a product of clever drafting that ought to be nipped in the bud.
The result
The appeal was dismissed on contest and the trial court's decision affirmed, with no costs.
Who argued it
Appearances as recorded in the judgment of the Court.
Frequently asked
Does a 99-year lease make me the owner?
No. It is a lease for a fixed term, even if renewable, and does not confer perpetual title.
When can a court reject a plaint without trial?
Where it discloses no real cause of action or is barred by law, including where clever drafting only creates an illusion of one.
Suing to protect a long lease
- Plead the lease for what it is — a term, with any renewal right.
- Seek protection of possession under the lease, not a declaration of ownership.
- Remember a buyer of the property generally takes subject to an existing registered lease; plead that instead.
- Disclose related litigation, such as an eviction suit.
Source. High Court at Calcutta, FA No. 65 of 2026, decided 9 September 2026 by Justice HON'BLE JUSTICE SABYASACHI BHATTACHARYYA, Justice HON'BLE JUSTICE SANDIP KUMAR DE. This explainer is written from the judgment text as reported.
Claw tracks High Court at Calcutta and 24 other High Courts, reads every order handed back, and surfaces the directions that carry a deadline. clawlaw.in