Arun Kumar Bhattacharya, J. - (1.) The hearing stems from an application filed by the petitioner praying for revision of the order dated 15.6.2002 passed by the Ld. Additional District Judge, 14th Court, Alipore in Public Premises Appeal No. 7/2001.
(2.) The circumstances leading to the above application are that Respondent No. 1 leased out a land measuring 4989.634 sq. meter at Transport Depot Road, Calcutta, for a period of 30 years on and from 22.12.1981 by virtue of a registered deed dated 27.4.1983 to the petitioner. On account of default in payment of rent since February, 1995, Deputy Land Manager, Calcutta Port Trust, for and on behalf of Respondent No. 1, issued a notice dated 22.11.1999 determining the said lease and asking the petitioner to vacate the land on 1.6.2000 at 11.00 a.m. On the basis of an application filed on behalf of the Calcutta Port Trust on 7.11.2000 a proceeding being No. 395/2000 was initiated by the Estate Officer under the provisions of Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 and a notice under Section 4(1) of the said Act was issued to the petitioner which was duly replied denying the material allegations made in the said notice to show cause. The Estate Officer passed an order of eviction on 4.4.2001 which was affirmed by the impugned order in appeal being Public Premises Appeal No. 7/2001 preferred by the petitioner. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said order, the petitioner has preferred the present revision. All that now requires to be considered is whether the Ld. Court below was justified in passing the said order.
(3.) Mr. Ashok Banerjee, Ld. Counsel for the petitioner, on referring to the provision of sub-section (1) of Section 34 read with Section 21 of the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963 contended that since the Deputy Land Manager is not a Head of Department he had no authority to issue notice determining the lease and as such the impugned order is liable to be set aside. Mr. Kishor Dutta, Ld. Counsel for Respondent No. 1, on the other hand, on drawing Court's attention to a few documents, submitted that apart from the fact that the provision of Section 34 of the said Act which applies only to execution of contract, has no manner of application in case of determination of lease, Deputy Land Manager is duly unauthorized to issue notice determining the lease.;