JUDGMENT : Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J. 1. The judgment debtors of an eviction decree have preferred the present revisional application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. By the impugned order, the executing Court has added subsequent purchasers of the suit property as parties to the execution case. After suffering the eviction decree, the petitioners preferred an appeal, which was initially dismissed for default, but subsequently restored on the prayer of the petitioners. 2. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that an application for addition of party at the instance of the present added decree holders is also pending in connection with such appeal. 3. The grievance of the petitioners is primarily that since the moratorium period specified in Section 13(3A) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 was not yet over, the transferees could not have been added as parties. Moreover, it is submitted that since the appeal is pending and the decree holders have not yet been added there, the executing Court ought not to have added the said transferees as parties. 4. As to the first submission, the rigours of Section 13(3A) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 is only applicable during pendency of a suit, that too in respect of "landlords". 5. Since, upon passing of an eviction decree, the present petitioners did not remain tenants in respect of the suit property as per the definition of "tenant" in the 1956 Act, by necessary implication the decree holders also did not remain landlords in respect of the petitioners vis-à-vis. the suit property. As such, the moratorium specified in Section 13(3A) of the 1956 Act could not have applied to the added parties or the original decree holders in execution proceedings. 6. As far as the second argument is concerned, the pendency of an application for addition of party in the appeal has no bearing on the impugned order. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed without, however, any order as to costs.