Analogous trial is unwarranted where eviction and declaratory title suits concern different properties and issues.

The petitioners, defendants in Title Suit No. 74 of 2025, filed an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking analogous trial of that eviction suit with Title Suit No. 6 of 2021, instituted by them

The eviction suit concerns shop rooms nos. 1, 2 and 3 on the ground floor of the suit building

In Title Suit No. 6 of 2021, the petitioners challenged the opposite parties’ acquisition of right, title and interest under a registered deed dated 22 January 2020 in respect of residential flats situated on the first floor of the building

The trial court rejected the prayer for analogous trial by Order No. 27 dated 5 August 2026.

It also appeared that the eviction suit had reached the stage of argument and that the petitioners’ defence against delivery of possession had been struck out under Section 7(3) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997, whereas the declaratory suit remained at the stage of hearing interlocutory applications

Whether the trial court acted illegally or with material irregularity in refusing to direct analogous trial of the eviction suit and the declaratory suit under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure

Whether the two suits involved substantially the same subject matter and issues so as to warrant analogous hearing for avoiding conflicting decisions

Whether interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India was warranted against the impugned order

The Court applied Article 227 of the Constitution of India, under which supervisory interference is warranted only where the subordinate court’s order suffers from jurisdictional error, material irregularity, or other manifest infirmity

Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure preserves the civil court’s inherent power to pass orders necessary for the ends of justice, including, where appropriate, coordinated or analogous trial of proceedings.

The Court further applied Sections 7(1), 7(2) and 7(3) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997, including the consequence of striking out the defence against delivery of possession for non-compliance with the statutory requirements

It reiterated that an eviction suit under rent-control legislation is founded on the existence of a landlord–tenant relationship, and that complicated questions of title ordinarily cannot be adjudicated in such proceedings

A declaratory suit challenging title is distinct in scope from an eviction suit based on landlord–tenant rights

The Court compared the schedules and subject matters of the two suits and found them to be different: the eviction suit concerned three ground-floor shop rooms, while the declaratory suit concerned first-floor residential flats and challenged title in respect of that property

Consequently, the suits did not involve identical properties or issues.

The Court also considered the advanced stage of the eviction proceeding, which had reached argument after the petitioners’ defence had been struck out under Section 7(3) of the 1997 Act, in contrast to the declaratory suit, which had not reached peremptory hearing

Since the eviction suit principally required examination of the landlord–tenant relationship and did not provide the appropriate forum for deciding complex title disputes, analogous trial was not necessary to prevent inconsistent findings

The trial judge had therefore given cogent reasons, and no jurisdictional or other material infirmity was shown warranting supervisory interference under Article 227

The refusal to direct analogous trial was therefore proper, and no interference under Article 227 was justified

Accordingly, C.O. 2961 of 2026 was dismissed, with no order as to costs