Monoj Kumar Mukherje, J. - (1.) Deb Kumar Sen Sarma, the opposite party No. 1 in these three Rules, was at all material times employed as a Sub-Inspector of Police, Calcutta. By a memorandum dated August 23, 1977 the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Head Quarters, Calcutta, directed him to vacate the Government flat which was allotted to him at 20A, Lower Range, Calcutta as the same was urgently required by the Police authorities and as he was owning a residential accommodation in the name of his wife at 22E, Lower Range, Calcutta. On receipt of the said memorandum Smt. Sudha Rani Sen Sarma, wife of the opposite party No. 1, served notices upon all the tenants who were occupying the premises No. 22E, Lower Range, Calcutta calling upon them to vacate the premises as the same were required for her own use and occupation and for the occupation of her family members, in view of the notice served by the Deputy Commissioner of Police. On the failure of the tenants to comply with the terms of the notices served upon them, the opposite party No. 1 and his sons and daughters filed four separate applications before the Rent Controller, Calcutta under section 29B of the .West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for their eviction as in the meantime, the wife of the opposite party No. 1 had died. These applications were registered as R.C. Case Nos. 10, 11, 12 and 13 of 1977.
(2.) In contesting the applications the tenants contended, inter alia, that all the opposite parties were not Government employees and had not been served with requisite notice entitling them to file application under section 29B of the Act; that the building was not fully residential ; that the opposite parties as heirs of Sudha Rani Sen Sarma and as co-sharers of the property could not invoke the provisions of section 29B of the Act; that the notice to quit under section 13(6) of the Act was not served at the instance of the Government employee himself; and that the entire premises were not reasonably required for the occupation of the opposite parties.
(3.) After considering the evidence and materials placed before him the Rent Controller allowed three of the applications filed by the opposite parties, while rejecting the other. The three aggrieved tenants thereafter moved this Court by filing applications under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and obtained these three Rules.;