Debangsu Basak, J. - (1.) The Court:- The petitioners seek a mandamus directing the respondents not to give effect to notices dated November 12, 2009 issued in Form "A" under Section 3(1) of the West Bengal Government Premises (Tenancy Regulation) Act, 1976.
(2.) Learned Advocate for the petitioners submits that, the petitioners are bona fide tenants under the respondent no. 1. The petitioners are using the tenancy premises for commercial purposes. The impugned notices issued under the Act of 1976 does not specify the reason as to why the petitioners have been called upon to vacate the tenancy premises. The Act of 1976 has no manner of application so far as the tenancy of the petitioners are concerned as the provisions of the Act of 1976 are applicable to a residential premises and not to a premises used for commercial purposes. Moreover, the provisions of the Act of 1976 are not attracted as, the immovable property concerned does not belong to the State Government. The Act of 1976 can be invoked only in respect of a property which is owned by the State Government. It is not so in the present case. Therefore, the Act of 1976 has no manner of application. The proceedings are bad in law. Learned Advocate for the petitioners draws the attention of the Court to Section 2(a) of the Act of 1996 and submits that, a Government premise is defined under the Act of 1976. The property concerned is not a Government premises within the meaning of 1976. He submits that, the impugned notice has been issued by the Chief Executive Officer of the Board of Wakfs. He is not an employee of the State Government and could not have issued the impugned notice.
(3.) In support of the contention that, a notice under Section 3 of the Act of 1996 must be informed with reasons, learned Advocate for the petitioners relies upon 1984 (2) CLJ 19 (Sushanta Kumar Basak v. State of West Bengal and Ors.) . In support of the contention that, the provisions of the Act of 1996 applies only to a premises used for a residential purposes only, learned Advocate for the petitioners relies upon (2000) 1 CAL LT 450 (HC) (Blue Print and 13 Ors. v. The Great Eastern Hotels Authority and Ors.) .;