R. K. Bag, J. - (1.) The petitioners have challenged the order dated February 21, 2017 passed by the Estate Officer, respondent no.1 in connection with Case no.EO/210/0101 under Section 7(2) of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as "the Public Premises Act of 1971") in this writ petition.
(2.) It appears from record that the predecessor- in-interest of the petitioners was the tenant under the respondent No.2 in respect of flat no.8 measuring 3,500 sq.ft. in the building known as "National Tower" at premises no.30 Loudon Street, Kolkata - 700 017 within the municipal corporation of Kolkata. After the death of predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners, the present petitioners became tenants under the respondent no.2 at a rental of Rs.1,000/- per month on the basis of terms and conditions agreed by and between the parties. The present proceeding was initiated against the petitioners long back and a written notice was served on the petitioners on January 14, 2002 calling upon them to show cause why an order will not be passed directing them to pay damages for occupying the said premises in unauthorised manner. The writ petition filed by the petitioners challenging the said notice was dismissed for default. The respondent no.1 proceeded against the petitioners on the basis of previous notice issued to the petitioners and passed order on February 21, 2017 directing the petitioners for payment of damages to the tune of Rs.1,39,30,000/- for occupying the said premises in an unauthorised manner. The said order dated February 21, 2017 passed by the respondent no.1 has been challenged by the petitioners mainly on the ground of violation of the principles of natural justice without preferring any appeal against the said order under Section 9 of the Public Premises Act of 1971.
(3.) Mr. Kushal Chatterjee, learned counsel representing the respondent nos. 1 and 2 has raised preliminary objection against dealing with this writ petition by this Bench on the ground that this writ petition does not fall within the ambit of Group-I under Schedule 'B' of the Rules framed by the High Court at Calcutta relating to the applications under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. By referring to the provisions of the above Rules, Mr. Chatterjee contends that the order passed by the respondent no.1 for realisation of damage from the petitioners cannot be construed as matters relating to land laws, as the order has been passed by the respondent no.1, Estate Officer in connection with the flat occupied by the petitioners in an unauthorised manner. Mr. Chatterjee has also referred to the provisions of Section 2(c) and (e) of the Public Premises Act of 1971 to fortify his submission that the premises is defined in the said Act as a building or part of the building and not the vacant land and as such this Court cannot deal with this matter while taking up the writ application in connection with Group-I matters for which this Bench has the determination. On the other hand, Mr. Abhrajit Mitra, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has referred to the same provisions of the Rules in order to submit that this Court has determination to deal with this matter as the matter falls within the ambit of Group-I of Schedule 'B' of the Rules framed by the High Court in connection with applications under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.;