Jayanta Kumar Biswas, J. - (1.) A notice of the Land Manager (IC) for and on behalf of the Board of Trustees for the Port of Kolkata dated November 12, 2007, Annexure P-6 at p. 28, to the first petitioner "to quit, vacate and deliver up vacant and peaceful possession of the property" that was leased out "on month to month basis to the first petitioner by the port trust has been challenged by the petitioners in this writ petition dated November 27, 2007. The notice to quit was issued alleging that The first petitioner unauthorisedly parted with possession of the property to the three companies named in the notice.
(2.) The land manager also said in the notice as follows : "It may be mentioned that there is no alternative but to place the matter before the Ld. Estate Officer, the adjudicating authority under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 in case of default in compliance as above on the part of the notice in view of the Bar in Court's jurisdiction under Section 15 of the Act in respect of eviction, recovery of arrear rental dues and damages, etc. as the Port's property is declared "Public Premises" as defined under the said Act."
(3.) Mr. Sharma, counsel for the petitioners, has argued that the petitioners have challenged the notice on the ground that it was issued without giving them any opportunity of presenting their case and of hearing. Mr. Dutta, counsel for the port trust, has said that in view of the division bench decision in Board of Trustees for the Port of Kolkata & Anr. v. Vijay Kumar Arya & Ors., 2009(2) CHN 274 : 12009(4) ICC (Cal.) 96, there is no merit in the contention. He has referred me to para.35 of the decision. In reply, Mr. Sharma has said that he wants to cite certain decisions which were not considered by their Lordships of the division bench. According to him, on the ground that without giving the petitioners reasonable opportunity of presenting their case and also of hearing the port trust issued the notice to quit, and in view of the decisions he wants to cite, even in the face of the division bench decision it can be held that the impugned notice is bad and liable to be set aside. I have given him opportunity to consider the Supreme Court decision in M/s. Radhakrishna Agarwal & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Ors., AIR 1977 Supreme Court 1496. He has said that Radhakrishna was not a case pertaining to lease of any property by any port trust.;