### HEIRS OF A TENANT LOSE STATUTORY PROTECTION FROM EVICTION AFTER FIVE YEARS UNDER THE WEST BENGAL PREMISES TENANCY ACT, 1997

The plaintiffs filed a suit for eviction against the appellants (defendant no. 5 series).

In their written statement, the appellants claimed they were bona fide monthly tenants under the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997.

The original tenant (appellants' father) died on December 24, 2008.

Five years after the death, the plaintiffs moved an application for a decree of eviction based on the admissions made in the written statement.

The Trial Judge passed a decree for eviction, which the appellants challenged on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction and improper valuation.

1. Whether a decree on admission can be passed under the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997, after the expiry of the five-year statutory protection for heirs.

2. Whether the High Court lacked jurisdiction under Section 18(2) of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882, due to the plaintiffs' characterization of the deceased as a "rank trespasser".

3. Whether the heirs of a deceased tenant are entitled to a right of pre-emption under Section 2(g) of the 1997 Act after the statutory protection period.

West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997, specifically Section 2(h) regarding the definition of a tenant and the five-year limitation on the right of succession for heirs.

Section 2(g) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 regarding pre-emption.

Section 18(2) of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882 (as amended in 1999) concerning the jurisdictional limits of Small Cause Courts based on property valuation.

The principle of "judgment on admissions" whereby a plaintiff can seek a decree based on statements made in the defendant's pleadings.

The court reasoned that since the appellants admitted in their written statement that they were governed by the Act of 1997, the plaintiffs were entitled to rely on that admission.

Under the 1997 Act, heirs of a deceased tenant only enjoy immunity from eviction for five years from the date of the tenant's death. Since the original tenant died in 2008 and the application was filed after 2013, the appellants had lost their statutory protection regardless of their dependency status.

On the issue of jurisdiction, the court noted that the suit was valued based on the property's market value, and the appellants failed to provide evidence that this valuation fell within the pecuniary limits of the Small Cause Court.

The court rejected the pre-emption argument, holding that such a right does not vest in heirs once the five-year protection period under the Act expires.

The suit was properly valued and correctly filed within the High Court's jurisdiction as the specific criteria for Small Cause Court jurisdiction under Section 18(2) were not met.

The High Court dismissed the appeal and the connected applications, upholding the Trial Judge’s decree. No order as to costs was made.