Occupants classified as trespassers under Section 2(g) of the 1997 Act fall outside Thika Controller jurisdiction.

Two second appeals were filed against concurrent judgments of the lower courts granting decrees of eviction against the appellants

The appellants’ predecessor-in-interest was originally a tenant, and a previous eviction suit against him had abated

However, the current suits were filed against the appellants on the ground that they had become trespassers by operation of Section 2(g) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997

One of the defendants named in the current suit had died prior to its institution

The appellants challenged the jurisdiction of the civil court, arguing the matter fell under the Thika Controller

1. Whether the civil court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the suit under Section 8(1) of the West Bengal Thika Tenancy (Acquisition and Regulation) Act, 2001

2. Whether the abatement of a previous suit against the appellants' predecessor-in-interest rendered the present suit non-maintainable

3. Whether the decree was a nullity because it was passed against a person who died before the institution of the suit

The court applied Section 2(g) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997, which defines the limited circumstances under which a tenant’s heirs retain tenancy rights, failing which they are categorized as trespassers

It further interpreted Section 8(1) of the West Bengal Thika Tenancy (Acquisition and Regulation) Act, 2001, which mandates that eviction of 'bharatias' (tenants under thika tenants) be governed by the 1997 Act and typically handled by specific authorities

Finally, the court applied the principle that a right to sue for trespass does not survive upon the heirs of a deceased trespasser and that a decree against a dead person is a nullity only to the extent of that individual

The court reasoned that because the appellants were deemed trespassers under Section 2(g) of the 1997 Act, they ceased to be "tenants" or "bharatias"

Consequently, the protections and jurisdictional shifts under Section 8(1) of the Act of 2001 did not apply, as that provision requires an existing landlord-tenant/bharatia relationship

Regarding the second issue, the court found the previous suit irrelevant because it was filed against the predecessor as a "tenant," whereas the present suit was filed against the appellants in a different capacity as "trespassers"

the court determined that the death of one defendant prior to the suit did not vitiate the entire decree; since a trespasser's right to occupy does not survive to heirs, the inclusion of the deceased was a mere superfluity that did not affect the validity of the judgment against the living occupants

The court dismissed the appeals and the connected applications under Order XLI Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure

The decrees of eviction were upheld, clarifying that the impleadment of a deceased defendant was irrelevant to the substance of the decree against the remaining trespassers

No order as to costs was made