The central legal point established in the judgment is the inapplicability of Section 7(2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997, due to the elapsed period of five years from the date of death of the original tenant and the absence of grounds under Section 6 of the Act for seeking eviction.

1. This petition is utterly misconceived and considerable time has been wasted to flog a dead horse.

2. The petitioners question the propriety of an order dated 24.2.2016 by which the petitioners’ application under Section 7(2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 has been rejected. The rejection is on the appreciation that the primary ground for eviction in the suit is the loss of status of the petitioners herein as tenants by operation of law. The principal case made out in the plaint is that the petitioners herein are trespassers inoccupation of the suit premises who have not vacated the same despite due notice in such regard.

3. The facts may be appreciated with reference to the plaint in the suit. Paragraph 2 of the plaint narrates that one Dilip Kumar Halder was inducted as a tenant at the suit premises on a monthly rent of Rs. 180/- according to the English calendar month. The further assertion in paragraph 2 of the plaint must be seen in the language of the plaint:

“It is mentioned herein that the original tenant said Dilip Kumar Halder died in the month of November 2001 leaving behind Defendant No. 1 (one) as wife and Defendant No. 2 (two) and 3 (three) as son and daughter.

It is further mention herein that the defendant No. 2 (two) and 3 (three) at the time of death of original tenant said Dilip Kumar Halder were neither dependents to said original tenant nor ordinarily were living with the original tenant said Dilip Kr. Halder.”

4. After describing the particulars of the suit premises in a schedule and incorporating the schedule as a part of the plaint, the narrative proceeds to record that the rent remains unpaid from January, 1997 before the following is asserted at paragraph 5 of the plaint:

“That until determination the defendant No. 1 (one) had been in occupation of the suit premises as a monthly tenant under the plaintiffs on monthly rent of Rs. 180/- (one hundred and eighty) only according to English calender month.”

5. At paragraph 8 of the plaint it is averred that on October 9, 2006 the plaintiffs issued notice to the defendants to vacate the suit premises upon the expiry of the month of November, 2006. The suit was instituted in January, 2007 claiming that the cause of action arose on December 1, 2006.

6. As is appropriately recorded in the judgment and order impugned, the substance of the plaintiffs’ case is that the tenancy stands determined by operation of law “and in this respect the notice to quit is also very specific, a copy of which is there with the plaint.” There is a paragraph in the plaint where there is an allegation that the plaintiffs apprehend that the possession of the suit premises may be handed over by the defendants to a third party against receipt of illegal consideration, but such allegation does not destroy the substratum of the plaintiffs’ case. Again, there is another short paragraph in the plaint where it is alleged that the plaintiffs reasonably require the suit premises. But such allegation appears to have been made in passing and may be ignored in the context of the primary cause of action that is evident on a meaningful reading of the plaint.

7. There is also an assertion in the plaint that the rent in respect of the suit premises has not been paid since January, 1997. Even such assertion, in the context of the principal ground urged in the suit, would not entitle a petition under Section 7(2) of the Act to be maintained in the suit. At any rate, it is not the petitioning-defendants’ case in their petition under Section 7(2) of the Act that a new tenancy was created after the death of the original tenant or after the expiry of the period when the heirs of the original tenant could be regarded as tenants by virtue of the extended definition of a “tenant” in the said Act. Further, the date of death of the original tenant, in the month of November, 2001 is clearly referred to in the plaint. The notice that was issued by the plaintiffs to the defendants for delivery of