Sanjib Banerjee, J. - (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 February 24, 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 in occupation 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 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'.";