Padma Khastgir, J. - (1.) This application relates to a dispute anting in respect of a lease granted by the trustees for the Improvement Trust of Calcutta in favour of Calcutta Electric Supply Corporation Limited By notification dated 13th of November, 1956 the Trustees for the Improvement Trust of Calcutta as the lessor granted a lease in respect of two brick built rooms measuring 12 ft x 10 ft. and 14 ft x 10 ft. on a flat no. A/2A on the ground floor of Busti Improvement Scheme No 1 (Singh Bagan) for the purpose of enabling Calcutta Electric Supply Limited to instal its transformer, switch gear and other equipments for supplying electric energy to the said Basti Improvement Scheme No. 1 and others for a term of ten years from 11th of August, 1955 with an option of renewal on a rent of Rs. 100/- per month exclusive of municipal texts and such rent was payable according to English calendar month by the 7th of every month. The renewal clause entitles the lessor to continue it for another tan years on the same covenants and terms ai contained in the lease. At the request of the lessee by latter dated 15th of April, 1956 the lessor agreed to renew the lease and communicated its decision by its letter dated 26th of May, 1966 for a period of ten years with an option of renewal for a further period of 10 years at a monthly rent of Rs. 120/- plus apportioned amount of occupier share of corporation rates and taxes. By letter dated 20th of September, 1975 Calcutta Electric Supply Corporation expressed its desire to renew the lease for a period of ten yean on the same terms and conditions. Thereafter after the expiry of the lease on 10th of August, 1975 the petitioner has been in occupation of the demise premises and went on paying rent to the Trustees for the Improvement Trust of Calcutta and tho Trustees have accepted the said rent upto the month of June, 1978 and, according to the petitioner, it has been holding over the demise premises after the expiry of the lease with the consent of the Trustees of the Improvement Trust of Calcutta.
(2.) On about 23rd of June, 1978 the petitioner received from the Respondent No. 2, the Estate Manager of Calcutta Improvement Trust, describing himself as the offices appointed under section 2(i) of the West Bengal Government Premises (Tenancy Regulation) Act, 1976 a notice to quit purporting to be issued under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act read with Section 3(1) of West Bengal Government Premises (Tenancy Regulation) Act, 1976 requiring the petitioner to quit the demise premises end deliver vacant and peaceful possession thereto within one month from the date of the service of the said notice and the reason given was because of the expiry of the lease on the 11th of August, 1975 granted on 30th of September, 1965. According to the petitioners, the said notice is bad and unwarranted in law sS the Respondents have no authority to issue the aforesaid notice dated 17th of June, 1978 terminating the tenancy in favour of the petitioner. As such the said notice is void ab initio and in liable to be set aside, cancelled or qua shed.
(3.) The main ground for attack of the said notice by the petitioner is that the Estate Manager, Calcutta Improvement Trust has no jurisdiction to issue such purported notice under the Act referred to above inasmuch as the provisions of Weal Bengal Premises (Tenancy Regulation) Act, 1976 do not apply to premises in question as it is not a Government premises within the meaning of Section 2(a) of the said Act nor the Calcutta Improvement Trust is a department of the State Government or a undertaking of the Government of Welt Bengal Moreover Section 3(1) of the said Act contemplates termination of the tenancy after the expiry of the period mentioned in the notice. The impugned notice mentions the said period to quit by stating that the possession is to be delivered within one month from the date of the service of the said notice. As such it is bad in law, inoperative and has no legal effect Thirdly, according to the petitioner, the raid West Bengal Premises (Tenancy Regulation) Act, 1976 it ultra vires and illegal inasmuch as it dues not pro-tide alternative remedy of challenging the validity of the Act as under the provisions of the said Act the jurisdiction of the civil court hat been taken away. Moreover the said Act is ultra vires and illegal, according to the petitioner, inasmuch as it does not provide tor any opportunity to the affected persons of making any representation nor does it provide for an opportunity of being heard.;