Prasenjit Mandal, J. - (1.) THIS application is at the instance of the appellant and is directed against the Order dated April 28, 2010 passed by the learned Judge, City Civil Court, 7th Bench, Calcutta in Misc. Appeal No. 17 of 2004 arising out of the Order dated July 29, 2004 passed by the Estate Officer, UCO Bank in Case No. 12 of 2002. One, Duli Chand Nawar and Brothers were the owners of the premises No. 2, India Exchange Place, Calcutta -700001 and the respondent -bank / opposite party herein purchased the said property. The appellant / petitioner herein was then in possession of the room no.4 situated on the first floor of the said premises. Thereafter, the Estate Officer issued a notice under Section 4 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 upon the appellant / petitioner herein and then the eviction proceeding was started against the appellant / petitioner herein under the said Act. The parties led evidence to the said eviction proceeding and thereafter, the Estate Officer passed orders of eviction against the appellant / petitioner herein. Being aggrieved by such orders of eviction, the appellant / petitioner preferred an appeal being Misc. Appeal No. 17 of 2004 and that misc. appeal was disposed of on contest affirming the orders of recovery of possession. Being aggrieved, this application has been preferred by the appellant.
(2.) NOW , the question is whether the impugned orders should be sustained. Upon hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and on going through the materials on record, I find that the appellant is in possession of the room no.4 situated on the first floor of the premises no.2, India Exchange Place, Calcutta - 700001 and this is the premises in case. It is an admitted position that the respondent -bank / opposite party herein had purchased the premises no.2, India Exchange Place, Calcutta -700001 and the respondent -bank being a nationalised bank is a corporation established by the Central Act. So the premises belonging to the nationalised banks shall be treated as public premises. Obviously, the premises in case is a public premises. According to the decision of Ashoka Marketing Ltd. & anr. v. Punjab National Bank & ors. reported in : AIR 1991 SC 855, premises belonging to a nationalised bank is also a public premises and therefore, so far as eviction is concerned, the provision of the said 1971 Act shall apply in the instant case.
(3.) THE appellant / petitioner herein has contended that it was inducted as a monthly tenant under the original owners, namely, Duli Chand Nawar & Brothers about 50 years back and he had been paying rent to the said owners regularly and the owners granted rent receipts since 1950.;