Prasenjit Mandal, J. - (1.) THIS application is at the instance of the opposite party no. 1 and is directed against the order dated June 3, 2013 passed by the learned Estate Officer, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited, Kolkata (henceforth B.P.C.L. in short) thereby rejecting the prayer of the opposite party no. 1/petitioner herein for expunction of his name from the proceeding under the provisions of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971. The B.P.C.L. instituted the aforesaid proceeding against the opposite party no. 1/petitioner herein and the opposite party no. 2 Agri -Horticultural Society of India, No. 1, Alipore Road, Kolkata - 700027 praying for eviction of the unauthorised occupants of the opposite party no. 1, damages and other reliefs.
(2.) IN that suit, the petitioner herein entered an appearance and filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the C.P.C. praying for expunction of his name from the said proceeding contending, inter alia, that he is not connected with the said proceeding at all under the provisions of the said Act. That prayer was rejected by the impugned order. Being aggrieved, this application has been preferred. Now, the question is whether the Estate Officer is justified in rejecting the prayer of the opposite party no. 1/petitioner herein.
(3.) HAVING heard the learned Counsel for the parties and on going through the materials on record, I find that the main relief sought for in the aforesaid proceeding under the provisions of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 is against the opposite party no. 1 contending, inter alia, that the opposite party no. 1 is unauthorisedly occupying the said premises from the very beginning w.e.f. October 13, 2011 and so, appropriate reliefs as mentioned above have been sought for against him.;