Court No. 6 (265719) 01.09.2026 (A 943) (S. Banerjee) CO 205 of 2026 Basanta Kumar Das & Anr. Vs. Broadway Centre & Anr. Mr. Mohit Gupta Mr. Suman Banerjee …for the petitioners Mr. Sagnik Mukherjee Ms. Shree Chatterjee …for the opposite-parties This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of the defendants and is directed against an order being no. 27 dated November 4, 2025 passed by the learned Judge, 3rd Bench, Presidency Small Causes Court, Calcutta in Ejectment Suit No. 250 of 2021. By the order impugned, the application under Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code praying for stay of all further proceedings of the eviction suit till disposal of the Title Suit No. 1811 of 2019, stood rejected. Learned advocate appearing for the petitioners submits that there is a serious dispute as to the title between the opposite-parties and the heirs of Late Brojo Nath Boral. He submits that under a representation made by the Borals, the petitioner was paying rent to the Borals. He further submits that if ultimately in Title Suit No. 1811 of 2019 it is decided 2 that the opposite-parties do not have any title in respect of the suit property, the petitioners will suffer irreparable loss and injury as in the meantime the ejectment suit may be disposed of. He submits that the petitioners is not a tenant under the opposite- parties. Heard Mr. Mukherjee, learned advocate for the opposite-parties. Title Suit No. 1811 of 2019 is a declaratory suit and the scope of enquiry in such a suit is whether the right, title and interest of the plaintiff therein in respect of the suit property has been established. However, the foundational basis of an ejectment suit under the provisions of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 is existence of landlord-tenant relationship between the parties and an eviction can be sought for on the grounds for eviction under the relevant statute and only upon compliance of the requirements for filing such a suit. The learned trial judge rightly held that in an eviction suit under the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, the primary focus is on the existence of the landlord-tenant relationship and the ground for eviction available under the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act and not the question of title of the landlord in respect of the suit property. The learned 3 trial judge was right in holding that the decision in a declaratory suit shall not have any bearing on the outcome of the eviction suit. The learned trial judge also noted that the issues in both the suits are not same and identical. This Court is of the considered view that the learned trial judge was right in rejecting the prayer for stay of all further proceedings of the ejectment suit. This Court is not inclined to interfere with the order impugned under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, this reviaional application stands dismissed without, however, any order as to costs. (Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.)