- (1.) The petitioner's father had obtained a lease on 14th November, 1969 from the State in respect of plot nos. Z-6 and Z-7 in Howrah Industrial Estate situated in Mouza Baltikuri in Howrah. By Government Order dated 5th December, 1994 administrative control of the said Industrial Estate was transferred to the respondent no.1. The father of the petitioner died on 12th August, 2001 and the petitioner says he inherited the tenancy. A notice under Section 3 (1) of the West Bengal Government Premises (Tenancy Regulation) Act, 1976 dated 2nd October, 2001 was issued by the prescribed authority under the said Act calling for delivery of vacant possession of the demise within one month from the date of service of the same alleging violation of the terms of the lease vide clause no.3B. The said clause is reproduced below. "If the rent hereby reserved or any part thereof shall remain unpaid for six months after becoming payable or if any covenants on the part of the Lessee herein contained shall not be performed observed or if the demised premises be not used by the Lessee for purposes mentioned in clause 2(f) hereof for a continuous period of six months then and in any such event, it shall be lawful for the Lessor or the Government/at any time thereafter to determine the Lease and to re-enter upon the demised premises or any part thereof in the name of the whole and thereupon this demise shall absolutely determine without prejudice to the rights of the Lessor or the Government in respect of breach of the Lessee's covenants herein contained."
(2.) The notice appears to be in printed form in which the line regarding default of payment of rent was scored through thus indicating the ground to be violation of all or any of the remaining terms in the said clause. By this writ petition, the petitioner had challenged, inter alia, the said notice. On behalf of the petitioner only the prayer regarding challenge to the said notice was pressed at the time of hearing. Mr. Banerjee, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner relied on the decision (D. Banerjee Vs. State of West Bengal,2000 1 CalHN 319) delivered by a Division Bench of this court. Referring to paragraphs 29 and 30 of that decision he submitted the notice was bad, as it had been issued without investigation as to whether any breach of a clause of the lease had been committed by the Lessee. Such investigation could only have been done by allowing the petitioner to place his version of the story as opposed to the version advanced by the respondents. He submitted further there was no admitted position on facts regarding the allegation of breach but what could not be disputed was no investigation had been made by, inter alia, calling for an explanation from the petitioner.
(3.) Mr. Kar, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted no interference could be made by this court by reason of evidence that there was no activity for the purposes of manufacture or manufacturing process by the petitioner in the demised premises for a continuous period of six months prior to issuance of the impugned notice. He drew the attention of this court to the disclosures by pages 13 and 14 of the affidavit in opposition used by the respondent no.1. Page 13 is a copy of a letter dated 16th July, 2001 written by an officer to the Estate Manager, both of the said respondent, furnishing information that the said demised premises was closed since a long period. The disclosure at page 14 of the said affidavit appears to be a status report of the units at Baltikuri, Howrah which mentions, as serial no.4 therein the unit in the demised premises as closed since 10 years. He submitted further corroboration of such evidence was furnished by the Special Officer's report dated 5th October, 2002 filed pursuant to order dated 19th September, 2002 made in the writ petition. The Special Officer had reported, inter alia, there was no electricity line and on inquiry had been told about 15 years ago electricity line was disconnected. According to Mr. Kar no manufacturing process could be carried on in the absence of electricity. That the petitioner's unit was closed was still further demonstrated by the inability on his part to disclose any document relating to payment of excise duty or wage register of the relevant period. On those facts the petitioner was liable to be evicted as was the law laid down in the decisions (Estate Manager Hsg. Dept. Vs. D.K.De.,1996 2 CalHN 515) , (Associated Indemn Mechanical (P) Ltd. Vs. W.B.S.I.D.C. Ltd., 2006 AIR(Cal) 176) and (Associated Indemn Mechanical (P) Ltd. Vs. W.B.S.I.D.C. Ltd., 2007 3 SCC 607) paragraphs 13 to 16.;