S.P. Talukdar, J. - (1.) The petitioner, Inland Manufacturing Company, by filing an application under Article 227 of the Constitution being C.O. No. 4477 of 2005 sought to assail the judgment dated 30th September, 2005 passed by the learned 5th Bench, City Civil Court at Calcutta in Misc. Appeal No. 13 of 2001. The learned Court by the said judgment affirmed the order dated 4th June, 2001 passed by the Estate Officer, Kolkata Port Trust in proceeding No. 281 of 1999.
(2.) The grievances of the petitioner, as ventilated in the said application, may briefly be stated as follows: The petitioner is a monthly tenant in respect of a passage measuring 6.318 square metre together with a room measuring about 1951 square kilometre called Plate No. CG - 184/1, situate at P -221/2, Strand Bank Road, P.S. - North Port, Kolkata - 700 001 hereinafter referred to as the 'said premises'. The petitioner became a tenant under the opposite party on and from March 31, 1968. He had been paying monthly rent of Rs. 138/ - only inclusive of municipal rates and taxes regularly. The respondent all on a sudden issued a purported notice to quit dated 4.11.1994 alleging unauthorized construction and subletting. The petitioner duly replied to the same, inter alia, denying all the material allegations. Another purported notice to quit dated December 8, 1995 was issued by the respondent authority wrongfully and illegally. The petitioner received the same on January 29, 1996. By such second notice, the first notice stood waived and/or withdrawn. Respondent raised rent bills from the months of December, 1995 and January, 1996 and the petitioner paid the rent for the said months. Thus, the subsequent notice dated 8th December, 1995 was also given a go -by. On February 25, 1996, the respondent authority through its staff sought to trespass into the said premises and attempted to dispossess the petitioner wrongfully and illegally.
(3.) This was repeated on 18th March, 1996. Such attempts were, however, effectively resisted. The petitioner filed a suit being Title Suit No. 730 of 1996 against the respondent before the City Civil Court, Calcutta praying for declaration that plaintiff is a tenant in respect of the suit premises under the defendant and that the defendant is not entitled to dispossess the plaintiff therefrom or to interfere with the possession of the plaintiff in the suit premises as well as for various other reliefs. In response to an application for injunction, the learned Chief Judge, City Civil Court, by an order dated 26th March, 1996 directed the respondent not to dispossess the petitioner or disturb its peaceful possession except in accordance with law till disposal of the injunction matter. The said order was extended from time to time. Suppressing all such material facts, the respondent filed a purported petition for eviction before its Estate Officer under the provisions of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 on the basis of the said notice dated 8th December, 1995. In fact, legality and validity of the said notice is also a subject matter of the civil suit as referred to earlier. The Estate Officer held an inspection of the premises and by order No. 14 dated 14th December, 1999, the allegations of subletting and encroachment upon the land of the respondent were discarded.;