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

The petitioners, defendants in Title Suit No. 73 of 2025, sought analogous trial of that eviction suit with Title Suit No. 6 of 2021, which they had instituted challenging the opposite parties’ acquisition of title.

The petitioners claimed ownership of two first-floor residential flats and tenancy in five ground-floor shop rooms, including Shop Nos. 24 and 30.

Title Suit No. 73 of 2025 concerned eviction from Shop Nos. 24 and 30 under the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997, whereas Title Suit No. 6 of 2021 concerned the opposite parties’ title to the first-floor residential flats.

The trial court rejected the petitioners’ application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for analogous trial by Order No. 28 dated 5 August 2026.

By that stage, the eviction suit had reached the stage of argument, and the petitioners’ defence against delivery of possession had been struck out under Section 7(3) of the 1997 Act; the declaratory suit was still at the stage of hearing of an interlocutory injunction application.

The petitioners challenged the rejection under Article 227 of the Constitution.

Whether Title Suit No. 73 of 2025, concerning eviction from ground-floor Shop Nos. 24 and 30, ought to be tried analogously with Title Suit No. 6 of 2021, concerning the petitioners’ challenge to the opposite parties’ title to first-floor residential flats.

Whether the trial court’s refusal to direct analogous trial disclosed any jurisdictional error or infirmity warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution.

The Court exercised its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution and considered the petitioners’ application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for analogous trial.

It applied the principle that analogous hearing is not warranted where the subject matter and issues in the two suits are materially different, particularly when the suits are at substantially different procedural stages.

The Court further held that an eviction suit under the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 is founded on the existence of a landlord–tenant relationship, and complicated questions of title ordinarily cannot be adjudicated in such proceedings.

Sections 7(1), 7(2), and 7(3) of the 1997 Act were also relevant, including the consequence of striking out the defence against delivery of possession for non-compliance with the statutory requirements.

The Court compared the schedules and subject matters of the two suits and found them to be distinct.

The eviction suit related only to ground-floor Shop Nos. 24 and 30, while the declaratory suit challenged the opposite parties’ title in respect of first-floor residential flats.

Therefore, the title dispute in the declaratory suit did not require analogous adjudication with the eviction claim.

Moreover, the eviction suit had already reached the stage of argument, with the petitioners’ defence against delivery of possession struck out under Section 7(3) of the 1997 Act, whereas the declaratory suit remained at the interlocutory stage.

Since the legal foundation and scope of an eviction proceeding differ from those of a title-declaratory suit, the Court held that the trial judge had assigned cogent reasons for refusing analogous trial.

No jurisdictional error or other infirmity was established.

It held that the two suits concerned different properties, involved different scopes of adjudication, and were at materially different procedural stages.

The order rejecting analogous trial was upheld, and C.O. No. 2955 of 2026 was dismissed.

There was no order as to costs.