TAPABRATA CHAKRABORTY,J. - (1.) The subject matter of challenge in the present writ petition is an order dated 21st June, 2018 passed by the respondent no.3.
(2.) Mr. Bose, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that originally one Hanif Mohammad was a tenant in respect of the shop room situated at 14/7, Orphangunge Government Market (in short, the said shop room). After his death the tenancy stood transferred upon Nasim Bano, who expired in the year 2009. Upon the death of Nasim Bano, the private respondent no.6 was accepted as the tenant of the said shop room. On the basis of two affidavits dated 18th October, 2012 and 26th February, 2013 executed by the respondent no.6 consent was given to transfer the tenancy in favour of the petitioner. On the basis of the said affidavits, the authorities collected rent from the petitioner. Surprisingly, by a memo dated 31st May, 2016 the respondent no.4 informed the petitioner that on the basis of a complaint lodged by the respondent no.6 by her letter dated 21st January, 2016, collection of tax from him has been suspended temporarily by an order dated 9th February, 2016 on a purported charge of manipulation including discrepancy in respect of an affidavit dated 6th February, 2014. The petitioner immediately replied to the same enclosing the affidavits executed in his favour. On the basis of such false complaint lodged by the respondent no.6, a criminal case was also initiated being Watgunge Police Station Case no.236/16 dated 5th September, 2016 under Sections 420/467/468/471 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner was, thereafter, called for hearing and a final order was passed on 21st June, 2018 directing him to relinquish the possession of the said shop room. The signature of the respondent no.6 as incorporated in the affidavits dated 18th October, 2012 and 26th February, 2013 ought to have been examined by the authorities prior to issuance of the impugned order dated 21st June, 2018.
(3.) Mr. Bose submits that the impugned order suffers from violation of the principles of natural justice inasmuch as the complaint lodged by the private respondent no.6 was not even handed over to the petitioner. The order also does not specify the statutory provision on the basis of which the same had been issued by the respondent no.3 and as such the same suffers from a jurisdictional error.;