DEBANGSU BASAK, J. - (1.) THE writ petitioner is a lessee of a plot of land at the Behala Industrial Estate. The lease in favour of the petitioner No. 1 had expired by efflux of time in 2008. The writ petitioners entered into negotiations with the respondent authorities for renewal of the lease as well as bifurcation of the plot. During such negotiations it was agreed that, petitioner No. 1 will give up a portion of the lease area in favour of the petitioner No. 1. The writ petitioners seek an order on the respondents to register a deed of lease in favour of the petitioner No. 2 and to renew the deed of lease in favour of the petitioner No. 1. During the pendency of the writ petition the respondent No. 1 issued a notice dated June 18, 2014 under Rule 3(1) of the West Bengal Government Premises (Tenancy Regulation) Act, 1976. The prescribed authority appointed under Section 2(e) read with Section 8 of the West Bengal Government Premises (Tenancy Regulation) Act, 1976 by an Order dated August 20, 2014, directed eviction of the petitioner No. 1 from the industrial plot concerned.
(2.) THE writ petitioners moved an interim application being G.A. No. 3136 of 2014 seeking stay on those two actions in respect of the industrial plot concerned. Both the interim application as well as the writ petition were taken up for hearing.
(3.) MR . Sabyasachi Chowdhury, learned Advocate for the petitioners contends that, the petitioner No. 1 was a lessee in respect of 2,002 square feet of land at the Behala Industrial Estate. Such lease expired by efflux of time in 2008. The petitioner No. 1 had applied for bifurcation of the plot. This was approved by a letter dated January 17, 2008. He refers to another letter dated May 19, 2008 by such the respondent No. 1 called upon the writ petitioner to submit various documents. He points out that, the parties met on May 29, 2009. A minutes of such meeting was prepared. It was decided in such meeting that, the writ petitioner No. 1 will be allowed to retain 1,202 square feet and the balance 800 square feet will be given to other entities. He submits that, his client is willing to take 1,202 square feet as agreed in the meeting held on May 29, 2009. He refers to the Order dated May 6, 2010 passed in a suit filed by his client and submits that, pursuant to the consensus arrived at on May 29, 2009 which required the petitioner No. 1 to withdraw proceedings in respect of the plot of land withdrew the suit which was filed against the trespassers. His client, therefore, altered his position to his prejudice. He points out that, in spite of his client taking steps in accordance with the consensus arrived at on May 29, 2009, the respondent authorities issued a notice dated June 18, 2014 requiring the writ petitioner to vacate the industrial plot concerned.;