Calcutta HC Shields Tenant on Unauthorised Floor, Orders Landlord and Developer to Relocate Her
Calcutta High Court halts demolition of an unauthorised 5th floor flat in Howrah, directs the landlord and developer to relocate the tenant to an authorised premises, invoking Article 21 shelter rights.
Justice Raja Basu Chowdhury, sitting singly in the Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction of the High Court at Calcutta, on 22 May 2026 declined to restrain the Howrah Municipal Corporation from demolishing an unauthorised 5th floor flat at Premises No. 60, M.C. Ghosh Lane, Ward No. 19, Howrah, but simultaneously directed the landlord and the developer to relocate the occupant, Indradevi Sonkar, to an authorised residential premises commensurate with her present occupancy. The court also granted her a one-month stay on demolition of her specific portion, acting on an undertaking she filed in court that day. The order draws on the Supreme Court's ruling in In Re: Directions In The Matter of Demolition of Structures, (2025) 5 SCC 1, for the proposition that the right to shelter is a facet of Article 21.
How the Petitioner Came to Occupy an Unauthorised Floor
Indradevi Sonkar was originally a tenant at the Howrah premises under one Abhay Narayan Shaw. Shaw later sold the property to the person now arrayed as respondent no. 7, who continued collecting rent. In 2021, the petitioner and other tenants entered into an agreement with respondent no. 7 and the developer, respondent no. 8, under which the tenants temporarily vacated their portions so the existing structure could be demolished and a new building constructed.
In 2025, the petitioner was rehabilitated on the 5th floor of the newly constructed building and has been residing there since. The Howrah Municipal Corporation then initiated demolition proceedings, scheduled for 20 May 2026, targeting the unauthorised upper floors. That threat prompted the writ petition.
The Municipal Corporation's Report and the Legal Difficulty It Created
The municipality filed a report dated 20 May 2026 disclosing that the building is a G+5 storied structure, though sanction was granted only up to G+3 level. The 4th and 5th floors were built entirely without sanction and in deviation from the approved plan. The report left no ambiguity: the floor on which the petitioner resides is completely unauthorised.
Justice Basu Chowdhury acknowledged this squarely. Because the petitioner's floor is unauthorised, the court found there was no legal basis to restrain the municipality from demolishing it. The petitioner could not claim a right to remain in a structure that should not have been built at all.
Why the Court Still Intervened on the Petitioner's Behalf
The court's intervention rested on two distinct grounds: the petitioner's own undertaking, and the conduct of the private respondents.
On 22 May 2026, the petitioner filed a supplementary affidavit in court undertaking to remove her belongings from the occupied portion within one month. The court treated this as a basis to grant her at least that period before any demolition action is taken against her specific portion. An inspection is to be carried out to identify and minute her occupied portion, with her signature, so the municipality knows precisely what is covered by the stay.
On the broader question, the court pointed to the conduct of respondent no. 7 and respondent no. 8. The landlord had rehabilitated the petitioner, an erstwhile tenant who had vacated in good faith, in a portion that was itself unauthorised. The developer had constructed two floors beyond the sanctioned plan. The court described this as conduct that “speaks volumes of the mala fide conduct” of the private respondents.
Justice Basu Chowdhury invoked Article 21, noting that the right to life includes the basic necessity of shelter, and referred to the Supreme Court's direction in In Re: Directions In The Matter of Demolition of Structures, (2025) 5 SCC 1, which recognised the right to shelter as one of the facets of Article 21. The court also noted the practical reality: it is very difficult for an individual to obtain residential accommodation in the heart of a city like Howrah.
Precedent Within the Same Dispute: The Division Bench Direction
The single judge drew support from a direction issued on 17 July 2025 by a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in Bijay Kumar Shaw & Ors. v. Howrah Municipal Corporation & Ors., MAT 996 of 2025. That earlier order, in what appears to be a related matter involving the same premises, informed the present court's view that relocation by the landlord and developer was the appropriate remedy.
On that basis, Justice Basu Chowdhury directed respondent nos. 7 and 8 to relocate the petitioner to a separate residence commensurate with her present occupancy. The replacement accommodation must be in an authorised structure. The financial and logistical liability for the relocation falls on both the landlord and the developer, who together carried out the illegal construction.
Non-Appearance of Private Respondents and Police Direction
Despite notice, respondent nos. 7 and 8 did not appear before the court. Justice Basu Chowdhury directed the Officer-in-Charge of the concerned police station, arrayed as respondent no. 6, to ensure the presence of these respondents when the matter is next taken up.
The development agreement and the power of attorney placed before the court by the petitioner on 22 May 2026 were taken on record.
Order
The Howrah Municipal Corporation is restrained from taking any further demolition action against the petitioner's specific portion until the next date of hearing, as an interim measure, having regard to the undertaking given by the petitioner. The petitioner must identify her occupied portion to the municipality; an inspection is to be carried out and minuted with her signature.
Respondent nos. 7 and 8 are directed to relocate the petitioner to a separate, authorised residential premises commensurate with her present occupancy. The Officer-in-Charge of the concerned police station is directed to ensure the appearance of respondent nos. 7 and 8 at the next hearing.
The matter is listed for further consideration on 17 June 2026 at 2 P.M.