Jayanta Kumar Biswas, J. - (1.) The first petitioner, a registered partnership firm, with four of its partners, has taken out this writ petition for a mandamus directing the Board of Trustees for the Port of Kolkata to give it direct tenancy of nine premises is terms of an order of the estate officer dated January 29th, 2002 made in five eviction proceedings initiated in the year 2001 under provisions of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971.
(2.) One Voltas Ltd. was the lessee of the premises. That company and the first petitioner entered into an agreement dated June 1st,, 2000, in terms whereof the first petitioner was to act as the clearing and forwarding agent of that company. In 2001 the eviction proceedings were initiated against that company alleging that it had acted in contravention of the terms and conditions of the lease. Notice under Section 4 of the Act was issued and served. The lessee submitted an application dated January 18th, 2002 stating that it was no longer interested in retaining possession of the premises. It also admitted that possession of the premises had been handed over by it to the first petitioner. In the proceedings the first petitioner filed an application dated January 17th, 2002 praying for an order directing regularisation of its occupation by grant of a direct tenancy.
(3.) After considering the affidavits filed by the company and the first petitioner, the estate officer made the final order dated January 29th, 2002. That order was to govern all the five cases. While holding that the company being an unauthorized occupant of the premises in question was liable to be evicted, the estate officer observed that since the question of livelihood of the persons associated with the business activities of the first petitioner was involved, the port trust might consider the question of granting tenancy to it. It was noted in the order that the representative of the port trust had submitted that direct tenancy might be granted on payment of all outstanding dues by the first petitioner. As a matter of fact no direct tenancy was granted, and the port trust did not take steps for recovery of possession of the premises as well. On July 7th, 2005 this writ petition was taken out in the wake of a letter dated April 28th, 2005 issued by the land manager of the port trust directing delivery of possession of the premises.;