JOYTOSH BANERJEE,J. - (1.) THIS proceeding under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against an order passed by the Additional District Judge, Howrah dismissing the Misc. Appeal which was directed against an order of eviction passed by the Estate Officer. In the same order impugned, the learned Additional District Judge also rejected an application under Order 26 Rule 9 C.P. Code for local investigation.
(2.) THE facts and circumstances leading to the instant proceeding, in brief are as follows :- The Opposite Party as applicant filed a case for eviction of the petitioner as a person who was under unauthroised occupation of a public premises within the meaning of public premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) which stood amended in 1980, hereinafter to be referred to as the Act. Admittedly, the National Textile Corporation Ltd. being a Government undertaking was formed for the purpose of functioning and management of the several Mills. In pursuance of an ordinance and following Act all properties of the Opposite Party, Arati Cotton Mills, Dasnagore stood vested to the statutory authority and the possession of all its lands, structures including office-building, Mills premises, Labour/staff quarters and adjoining land got vested. It is also not disputed that the previous management of Arati Cotton Mills permitted the present appellant to occupy one of the staff quarters as a licensee. Thereafter, a proceeding was started under the Act in which a notice under Section 4 of the Act was served and the Estate Officer passed an order of eviction on 12th May, 1997, in Case No. A/3 of 1996. The said order was affirmed by the learned appellate Court below. It is to be noted here that during the pendency of the Misc. Appeal before the learned Additional District Judge, the present petitioner as the appellant filed an application under Order 26 Rule 9 of the C.P. Code before such appellate Court playing for local investigation and the learned Judge after hearing both sides and taking into consideration all relevant facts and circumstances came to a clear finding that there was no scope for any local investigation as the controversy involved in that appeal did not require any such investigation and on that clear finding rejected the application. The only question for consideration before this Court is whether in a revision under Article 227 of the Constitution the High Court can interfere, in connection with the passing of the order impugned. It is to be noted that none of the reasons for an interference under such Article, namely, erroneous assumption or excess of jurisdiction or refusal to exercise jurisdiction etc. has been alleged.
(3.) AT the very outset, it should be pointed out that the Act in question deals with the aspects, namely, (1) Eviction of unauthorised occupants, and (2) Certain substantial and incidental matters against continuation of unauthorised occupation and it should also be made clear that the Act deals with public premises as distinguished from private premises. The said Act has been enacted to provide for a speedy machinery for eviction of unauthorised occupants of public premises. The definition of public premises as contained in Section 2(e) of the Act goes to indicate that premises belonging to the Central Government and the premises belonging to or taken on lease by or on behalf of any Company in which Central Government has got not less than 51 per cent of share, or any subsidiary of the first mentioned company or any Corporation or a local authority established by or under a Central Act and owned and controlled by the Central Government, fall within such definition. In the instant case, the undisputed position is that the petitioner being an employee of Arati Cotton Mills started occupying one of the quarters given to the employee of such Mills and the said Arati Cotton Mills subsequently became a unit of National Textile Corporation Ltd. In the petition as well as through the argument advanced by the learned Advocate for the petitioner, an attempt has been made to allege that the land in question originally belonged to one Alamohan Dass who was the owner of 201 decimals of land in Dag Nos. 2 and 3 appertaining to Khatian No. 541 of Mouza Sahanpur, District Howrah and the said Arati Cotton Mills Ltd. had 15 decimals of land in possession within 201 decimals of land in Dag Nos. 2 and 3 in Khatian No. 541 of the aforesaid Mouza. It is also the case of the petitioner that he is residing at the corner of the land in Dag No. 2, Khatian No. 541 of the same Mouza. In my considered opinion these questions cannot arise for consideration here, in view of the fact that the order of eviction was passed in connection with the specific quarters which was found in the unauthorised occupation of the petitioner. I have already noted that it is not disputed that the premises which is under occupation of the petitioner is a public premises being the property of National Textile Corporation, a Corporation of the Central Government.;