ANIRUDDHA BOSE, J. - (1.) These two revisional applications arise out of two separate proceedings initiated originally against Titagarh Paper Mills Co. Ltd. T.P.M. by the Estate Officer, Kolkata Port Trust under the provisions of The Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (the 1971 Act) seeking their eviction from two separate warehouses located on Strand Road, Kolkata. The properties involved carry the description of Compartment No. A/4 measuring 309.459 square meters and Compartment No. A -1 measuring 262.358 square meters respectively. Two separate notices under Section 4 of the 1971 Act had been issued on 28th August 1993, and the proceedings were numbered 175 and 176, both of 1993. These notices were issued mainly on the ground that TPM 's tenancy under the monthly term lease had been determined in the year 1985 upon issue of notice of ejectment and from the dates stipulated in the respective notices, TPM was in wrongful possession of the respective properties. I am not narrating detailed chronological sequence of events which took place at that point of time in this judgment, as what has been argued before me in these proceedings relate to certain legal issues, for which such detailed narration is not necessary. So far as the opposite parties are concerned, Mr. Saptangshu Basu, learned Senior Counsel agreed to disposal of these two petitions without filing any affidavit, as what was being argued before me related to pure questions of law. In respect of TPM, a scheme of arrangement was approved by the Company Judge of this Court by an order dated 1st February 2006, and by virtue of sanctioning of such scheme, the petitioners claim to have become entitled to exercise their rights in respect of the aforesaid warehouses, as also accept the obligations arising from the said properties. Admitted position is that during pendency of the proceedings under the 1971 Act, a fire had gutted both the properties on 13th February 2010. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that subsequent to such fire, the petitioner had abandoned the property and possession thereof was taken over by the port authorities. The fact that the port authorities are in possession of the subject properties since then is not in dispute.
(2.) These two applications are directed against a common order passed by the Estate Officer on 18th February 2014 under Section 7(2) of the 1971 Act, in two separate proceedings registered as 175 D and 176D of 2012 directing the department to draw formal order under Section 7 of the 1971 for payment of damages in the following terms: - ''Now Therefore, in view of the discussion above, KoPT 's prayer for damages is allowed subject to correction/modification of KoPT 's claim on account of sub -letting fees as aforesaid. Department is directed to draw formal order U/S 7 of the Act as per Rule made under the Act for recovery of damages against O.P./A.P., giving time upto 31.03.2014 for payment of Rs. 41,75,855/ - (SW -51) in respect of proceedings No. 175/D of 2012 and Rs. 43,68,839/ - (SW -46/7 Rs. 36,29,949/ - plus Rs. 7,38,944/ - for SF -176) in respect of proceedings No. 176/D of 2011. It is worthy to point out that notice U/S 7 of the Act in respect of proceedings no. 175/D of 2012 was issued to O.P./A.P. with an additional amount of sub -letting fees in respect of SF -176. It is subsequently detected that sub -letting charge head is in respect of proceedings no. 176/D of 2012 and as such the sub -letting fees recoverable from O.P./A.P. has been adjusted against damages payable in respect of proceedings no. 176/D of 2012. This adjustment/modification and/or rectification does not entail any additional financial liability to O.P./A.P. or I should rather say this rectification has no financial implication or miscarriage of justice to anybody. Parties are directed to take note of the matter and department is directed to issue formal order U/S 7 of the Act accordingly. Such charges on account of damages attracts interest at the rate of 15% per annum up to 18.9.19996 and thereafter at the rate of 18% per annum up to 6.4.11 and thereafter at the rate of 14.25% per annum from 7.4.2011 till its final payment as per KoPT 's notified rates in accordance with the notification published under authority of law in terms of the provisions of the Major Port Trusts Act, 1960. Needless to mention that any action taken by its Port Authority must abide by the decision of the Writ court or by any order passed by a competent court of law. All concerned are directed to act accordingly. ''
(3.) In the two original proceedings under Section 4 of the 1971 Act, TPM had filed their written response. It appears from the order impugned that the proceedings were contested by the TPM seeking insulation from the rigours of the 1971 Act, primarily relying on a scheme of Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR) as also on the ground of limitation. It is also recorded in the order, which is assailed in these two proceedings: - ''It reveals from record that this Forum of Law by its order No. 12 dated 27.01.1999 came to the conclusion that there was no justification of seeking order of eviction against O.P. on the ground of Implementation of ''Land Use Plan '' of KoPT and in case of failure on the part of C.P. to pay the amounts and instalments as stipulated in the said order. KoPT had every liberty to come up for further consideration of the matter. It was also made clear by the said order dated 27.01.1999 that the order regarding payment to KoPT shall remain in force for the period for which Rehabilitation Package of BIFR in force. It reveals from various orders passed by this Forum of Law that M/s. Titagarh Industries Ltd. (predecessor -in -interest of O.P.) time to time made payment of KoPT. During hearing on 03.03.2006 it is submitted on behalf of O.P. that certain concession has been given to O.P. by BIFR at the time of sanctioning scheme for Rehabilitation Package and in doing so, Notification in News Paper, inviting the attention the creditors of the Company/O.P. was published. It is argued that the Scheme was approved by the BIFR and the order for such for such approval of scheme was never challenged and as such, it has got an overriding effect. It is argued on behalf of KoPT that in any event the Rehabilitation Scheme as approved by BIFR has lost its force after statutory limit of time. Thereafter, M/s. Bhatpara Papers Ltd. expressed its right as Successor -in -interest of O.P. in respect of the properties in question as per Hon 'ble Calcutta High Court 's order dated 01.02.2006 regarding scheme of arrangement in question and filed its objection/petitions as Added Party (A.P.) to these proceedings. It transpires that A.P. made certain payments to KoPT which were accepted by the Port Authority without prejudice to the rights and contention both the parties and raised dispute regarding their liability towards payment of sub -letting fees. It is argued by KoPT that the original recorded tenant of KoPT applied for creation of sub -tenancy in favour of M/s. Commercial Products Ltd. being its subsidiary Company to store materials of others on temporary licence basis. Considered the order No. 46 dated 10.11.2006 in this respect. '' ;