- (1.) The subject matter of challenge in this writ petition is an order dated 1st July, 2002 issued under Rule 3(1) of the West Bengal Premises Regulation Rule, 1976 by which the writ petitioner, Peerless General Finance and Investment Company Limited were informed that the respondents have decided to terminate the tenancy in respect of Government premises occupied by them as described in the schedule. The said order reads as follows: Whereas it has been decided to terminate your tenancy in respect of the Govt. premises, i.e. now under your occupation as described In the schedule below (hereinafter referred to as the said premises). Now, therefore, I Shri A. Banerjee, E.D., The WBSIDC Ltd. and the prescribed authority under West Bengal Govt. Premises Tenancy Regulation Act, 1976 do hereby give you Notice under Sub. Sec. (1) of Sec. 3 of the West Bengal Govt. Premises (Tenancy Regulation Act, 1976) to quit the said premises and deliver vacant possession thereof within one month from the date of service of this Notice. Your tenancy is terminable inasmuch as you have violated the terms of the lease vide clause No. 2(J). If you fail to comply with this Notice, I/or any officer authorised by me in this behalf may take such steps or use such force as may be necessary to take possession of the said premises and as may be necessary to take possession of the said premises and may also enter the said premises for the aforesaid purpose. Reason: Allotment was made on the ground of your own office purpose. But in violation of the term let out The same to a third party. Prescribed Authority appointed under Sec. 2(e) (read with Sec. B) of Act, XIX of 1976 West Bengal Govt. Premises (Tenancy Regulation) Act, 1976.
(2.) Challenge was made mainly on two grounds. The first ground is that the premises in question is not a Government premises as defined in the West Bengal Government Premises (Tenancy Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act". Therefore, the provisions of the said Act particularly Section 3(1) do not have any application to the premises in question. Accordingly, the notice in question is with without or in excess of jurisdiction. The second ground of challenge is that there is no violation of clause 2(j) of the deed of lease executed by the respondent No. 1 in favour of the petitioner company because the petitioner company has granted a license in favour of a third party in respect of the lease hold premises. Therefore, the respondents have acted arbitrarily and without application of mind thereby issuing the impugned order as aforesaid. Mr. Chatterjee, learned Senior Counsel appearing in support of the writ petition submitted that by and under an Indenture of Lease executed on 11.1.1995 by the respondent No. 1 the petitioner company was granted a demised office space measuring about 9000 sq.ft. of built up area on third floor with all fittings and appurtenance situated as being part of the premises No. 62, Diamond Harbour Road, Behala, Kolkata-34 for holding the same for a term of 99 years from 11th July, 1994 to 10th July, 2093 yielding and paying to the respondent No. 1 @ Re. 1/- per year as rent according to English Calendar year during the said term. A premium of Rs. 54 Lakh was also paid by the petitioner company to the respondent No. 1 as consideration for grant of said lease.
(3.) As per the lease agreement, the petitioner company was required to pay Municipal Tax and surcharge against the bills to be raised by the respondent No. 1 as also common service charge as per rates fixed by them. It was submitted that the writ petitioner is paying the lease rent and also the tax along with common service charges as demanded by respondents from time to time.;