D/L. 7 with 8. May 13, 2026. MNS. SAT No. 83 of 2026 + CAN 1 of 2026 With SAT No. 84 of 2026 + CAN 1 of 2026 Husna Bano and others Vs. Mohammad Amiruzzaman and another Mr. Siddhartha Lahiri, Mrs. Farah Anjum, Mr. Debranjan Dutta, Ms. Nivedita Mullick, Advs. … for the appellants. Mr. Tarak Nath Halder …for the respondents. 1. Both the second appeals have been preferred against judgments of affirmance whereby both the courts below granted decrees of eviction against the appellants on the ground that they are trespassers by operation of Section 2(g) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 (in short “the 1997 Act”). Although the suit properties are different in the two appeals, the parties and the issues involved are the same and the judgments of the courts are almost the same verbatim. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants assails the judgments on three-fold grounds. 3. First, since by operation of Section 8(1) of the West Bengal Thika Tenancy (Acquisition and Regulation) Act, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 2001”), any suit 2 for eviction against the bharatias is required to be filed before the Thika Controller, the learned courts below, acting as civil courts, did not have jurisdiction to entertain the suits and pass the decrees. Secondly, a previous suit filed against the predecessor-in- interest of the appellants, by describing such predecessor as a tenant, had abated. Hence, the present suit was not maintainable. 4. Thirdly, one of the defendants named in the suit had died prior to the institution of the suit itself, thereby rendering the decree a nullity, being passed against a dead person. 5. Insofar as the first ground is concerned, which is related to the second, in view of the present appellants being sought to be evicted as trespassers by operation of Section 2(g) of the 1997 Act, the scope of the previous suit, which was filed against the predecessor of the appellants, who was actually a tenant in respect of the suit property, is completely different from the present suit, which was filed against the defendants in a different capacity, as trespassers. 6. Thus, the abatement of the earlier suit and/or the admission of the plaintiffs to the effect that the predecessor-in-interest of the appellants was a tenant do not have any bearing on the present suit. 7. Secondly, Section 8(1) of the Act of 2001 provides that monthly and other periodical tenancies of the bharatias in respect of the structures occupied by them on 3 payment of rent to the thika tenants shall, with effect from the date of coming into force of the Act of 2001, be governed by the provisions of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 in matters relating to the payment of rent by the bharatias and their eviction by the thika tenants, and the owners of the structures shall be deemed to be landlords and the bharatias shall be deemed to be tenants under the said Act. 8. However, in view of the appellants being taken outside the realm of tenancy by operation of Section 2(g) of the 1997 Act, their status was equivalent to trespassers. Hence, the appellants were neither bharatias nor tenants and the provisions of the 1997 Act were not attracted in respect of their eviction. Accordingly, the suits in their present form were not suits for eviction of either bharatias or tenants and, as such, the rigours of Section 8(1) of the Act of 2001 were not attracted at all. 9. Thirdly, nothing hinges on the decrees being passed against one of the defendants, who was deceased prior to the filing of the suits, since in any event, the right to sue in respect of a trespasser would not survive upon his/her heirs. 10. Hence, the effect of the said component of the decree which was passed against a dead person would be rather irrelevant, negating such decree insofar as the dead person was concerned but otherwise not vitiating the rest of the decrees in substance. The impleadment of a deceased defendant would at best be a superfluity not 4 affecting the validity / legality of the impugned judgments and decrees. 11. Thus, we do not find any substantial question of law having been made out for admitting these appeals. 12. Accordingly, SAT No. 83 of 2026 and SAT No. 84 of 2026 are dismissed under Order XLI Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 13. Consequentially, the connected applications, both bearing CAN 1 of 2026, are also disposed of. 14. There will be no order as to costs. (Biswaroop Chowdhury, J.) (Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.)