Susanta Chatterjee, J. - (1.) - This writ petition is heard along with C. O. 4389 (W) of 1986 filed by Bimal Kumar Samanta the respondent No. 4 against State of West Bengal and Others. It is stated in the present writ application that the petitioner was inducted as a tenant by the respondent No. 4 Bimal Kumar Samanta in respect of the rear portion of the premises No. 26, Khagen Chatterjee Road, Cossipore, Calcutta and since his induction in 1978 be is running hosiery business under the name and style of "Messrs. Hanuman Hosiery Tailors" having obtained necessary licenses from the appropriate Licencing Authority of the Municipal Corporation, Calcutta. It is alleged that sometime in the month of July 1984 the respondent No. 4 with some ulterior motive to dispossess the petitioner from the said premises started creating disturbance and the petitioner bad to seek necessary police help. An application under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was filed before the Learned Executive Magistrate, Sealdah and an appropriate order was made restraining the respondent No. 4 to commit acts of breach of peace and the police was directed to carry out the order. Further allegations have been made about police excess asking the petitioner to vacate the premises for which the petitioner had to move earlier writ application and the previous application was disposed of by order, dated 2nd December, 1985 passed by Bhagabati Prasad Banerjee J. that there should not be disturbance to the possession of the premises in question except in accordance with law. Subsequently, the respondent No. 4 filed a writ application and the same was moved on 8th April, 1986 before Prabir Kumar Mazumdar J. and the Civil Order No. 4389 (W) of 1986 is pending. The petitioner has further alleged that he duly made application for renewal of his licences with the prescribed fees but the Corporation authorities are not renewing the licence in view of an objection made by the respondent No. 4 Bimal Kumar Samanta. It is stated also that on earlier occasions the Municipal Corporation Authorities rejected the objection of the respondent No. 4 holding inter alia that the Municipal Corporation Authority has no legal right to refuse renewal when a person is engaged in particular trade. Thereafter, the Corporation Authorities are alleged to have changed the view to refuse granting of renewal of the trade licence and as a result thereof the petitioner is compelled to file a present writ application praying for issuance of a writ of Mandamus commanding the Calcutta Corporation Authorities to issue licence in favour of the petitioner in terms of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act and specially in terms of Sections 199 and 200 of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act and other consequential relief's as stated in the petition itself.
(2.) The learned lawyer appearing for the Calcutta Municipal Corporation appeared at the time of final hearing of the case and conceded that the Municipal Corporation authorities have no objection to grant licence as prayed by the petitioner.
(3.) The writ petition is, however, seriously opposed by the respondent No. 4 Bimal Kumar Samanta. Another writ petition filed by Bimal Kumar Samanta as indicated above being C. O. No. 4389 (W) of 1986 is taken up for bearing along with this case as observed earlier. It appears that Bimal Kumar Samanta has alleged that a tenancy comprising 3 (three) rooms of premises No. 26, Khagen Chatterjee Road was rented out to the petitioner for the purpose of carrying on business therein. Out of the said three rooms, two rooms are used for the purpose of carrying on the Ration Shop whereas in the other room, the petitioner started a tailoring business. As per the averments made in the said petition, it is stated in or about 1984, a labour trouble started affecting the hosiery and tailoring business and also taking advance of illness of Bimal Kumar Samanta, there was trespass within the tenanted room and a business has been started under the name and style of "Messrs. Hanuman Hosiery and Tailoring". Inspite of repeated requests the trespasser did not quit and vacate, Bimal Kumar Samanta had to write to the Calcutta Municipal Corporation Authorities not to issue any licence in favour of the illegal business being carried on under the name and style of "Messrs. Hanuman Hosiery and Tailoring". Since no action has taken by the Calcutta Corporation Authorities, a representation in writing way made on 11th April, 1985 demanding justice. There are further representations end, ultimately the Deputy Municipal Commissioner informed Bimal Kumar Samanta that licence issued under Sections 199 and 200 of the Act in favour of Venode Kumar Jalan and the certificate of enlistment cannot be withhold for a person engaged in any trade, profession or calling by a memo No. D.M.C. (R) 401/85-86 dated 3rd February, 1986 (copy of which is annexed "E" to the writ petition). Bimal Kumar Samanta challenged the said annexure 'E' alleging inter alia that Venode Kumar Jalan has no vestige of right, title and interest in the room in question and he cannot apply for a licence nor apply for the certificate of enlistment as prescribed by Sections 199 and 200 of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act stating all these allegations in details, a prayer was made for issuance of a writ of Mandamus commanding the Calcutta Corporation Authorities and their agents and officers not to give effect or further effect or acting in any manner on the basis of the said memo, dated 3rd, February, 1986 (Annexure 'E').;