- (1.) Appeals are taken up for hearing pursuant to the order dated January 22,1998, as In course of hearing of the applications it is felt the appeals themselves be disposed of.
(2.) The Impugned judgment In applications under Article 226 of the Constitution of India contains the facts and the various laws which are involved, in great detail. Since, however, we have chosen to dispose of the appeals mainly on the ground that before the questions that are decided by the learned Single Judge are addressed, it would be necessary to go into a few questions as to vires of the Great Eastern Hotel (Acquisition of Undertaking) Act, 1980, and amendments therein by the Amendment Act of 1989 and the principles as respects the efficacy of a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to decide the questions of facts in issue and the rules of prudence that are exercised by the Court in exercising the extraordinary jurisdiction of the Court to issue any prerogatives and/or directions/orders in matters which ordinarily are left for decision by the competent authority or by the Civil Courts.
(3.) The facts for our purpose can briefly be stated as follows:- The premises, called Great Eastern Hotel at Nos. 1. 2 & 3, Old Court House Street, Calcutta, and also No. 29, Waterloo Street, Calcutta, originally belonged to a public limited company, called the Great Eastern Hotel Limited. In its premises, besides restaurant and boarding, the company permitted occupation by certain individuals of portions thereof in which such individuals were having their independent business. In course of time, however, the premises at Old Court House Street and also Waterloo Street, Calcutta, are acquired by an Act of the legislature of the State of West Bengal, called Great Eastern Hotel (Acquisition of Undertaking) Act. 1980. The said Act has subsequently bees amended by the Amendment Act of 1989. The Government, it appears, has directed end accordingly, the Member-Secretary of the Great Eastern Hotel Authority under the said Act has issued letters to the occupants of independent portions of the premises for their independent business, requesting them to submit copies of the allotment letter/agreement in respect of the occupancy in the premises. According to the writ petitioner/ respondents, they were inducted by the erstwhile owner of the premises, i. e., the public limited company, as lessees on such terms and conditions of rent and possession as were agreed to between the parties and have been paying rent They replied, accordingly, to the letter of the Hotel Authority aforementioned end brought all relevant facts to his notice, Including facts that in the case of some of them suits for eviction were filed, in one case it ended in a compromise decree and in the other cases those are pending. The Authority, however, served upon some of the petitioners letter asking them to vacate the premises. Before they replied to the said letters, however, the Hotel Authority dispossessed them. Hence, the writ petitions.;