Gupta, J. - (1.) This Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent is directed against a Judgment dated 21.5.97 by a learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P No. 178 of 1996 whereby the writ application died by the appellant writ petitioner was dismissed by the learned Single Judge.
(2.) Brief facts leading to the filing of the Appeal are that the appellant was a tenant in respect of a shop room measuring about 1,000 square feet in the building known as "Queens Mansion" at No. 12 B/1, Park Street, Calcutta. Originally this bulldog was owned by Prudential Insurance Co. Ltd., the predecessor-in-interest of respondent No. 1, but after the merger of the aforesaid Company with the respondent No. 1. respondent No. 1 became the owner of the building in question. It is the undisputed case of the parties that the appellant inducted Bata India Ltd. into a portion of this building. Litigation between the appellant and Bata India Ltd., on the one hand and between the appellant and respondent No. 1 on the other ensued in respect of the aforesaid induction of Bata India Ltd., in a portion of the building. Ultimately, Bata India Ltd left the premises on 3rd December, 1994 and therefore, in the meanwhile the litigation between the appellant and Bata India Ltd. had come to be disposed of whereby a positive hading was returned by this Court that the appellant had inducted Bata India Ltd. as a Licensee in respect of a portion of the premises in question. It appears that a Notice dated 17th November, 1919 was served by respondent No. 1 upon the appellant whereby the appellant was accused of subletting the premises or a portion thereof to Eats India Ltd., without prior consent in writing of the respondent No. 1. The appellant was accordingly asked to quit, vacate and deliver vacant possession of the property. This was followed by another Notice dated 23.5.91 served on behalf of the respondent No 1 upon the appellant wherein once again the appellant was accused of granting leave/licence to Bata India Ltd., in respect of a part of the premises in question and accordingly, the tenancy of the appellant was terminated. The appellant accordingly Was asked to vacate end band ever vacant possession of the premises in question on or before the expiry of the month of June 1991. In this notice it was mentioned that if the appellant failed to do so, it would be considered as an "unauthorised occupant" of the premises in question and proceedings would be initiated against the appellant in terms of the provisions of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (1971 Act for short). This led the appellant to filo writ application, being Matter No 3643 of 1992 in this Court. Vide Judgment dated 11th March, 1994, the writ application was disposed of by a learned single Judge of this Court by observing that since the Notice bad already been issued upon the appellant and proceedings in terms of 1971 Act were under way, it was not possible for the Court to interfere with this Case. Ore of the questions raised in the said writ application was about the applicability of guidelines issued on 19tb February. 1992 by the Government of India, Ministry of Industry, Department of Public Enterprises, vide office Memorandum No 2(6)/92-IIPE (W. C.) deled February 19, 1992 where-under certain parameters were prescribed with regard to taking of action under 1971 Act by the Public Sector Undertakings under the Government of India. A clarification was issued on 21st September, 1992 in respect of these guidelines. the thrust of the argument of the appellant before the learned Single Judge in the aforesaid writ petition (Matter No. 3643 of 1992) was that in terms of the aforesaid guidelines it was not proper for the respondent No. 1 to have initiated proceedings against the appellant under 1971 Act. Since, the proceedings were pending before the Estate Officer, the learned Single Judge while disposing of the writ application vice Judgment dated 11th March, 1994 (supra) therefore, passed the following directions:- "(a) If the replies to the show cause notices, being Annrxurea and 'G', 'H' and 'I', have not yet been disposed of by the writ petitioner, the writ petitioner is directed to file the same within a month from this date ; (b) Since the said application in which the guideline has keen annexed is still pending decision before tie Estate Officer, the Estate Officer shall, at the time of final disposal of the proceedings initiated by him on the bails of the show cause notices, being Annexures 'G', 'H' and 'I', consider the said guideline and decide whether in view of the said guideline, the eviction proceeding initiated against the writ petitioner should be withdrawn. The Estate Officer shall also consider as to whether the said guideline has any statutory effect or not, (c) The Estate Officer shall dispose of the entire proceedings initiated by him under the Act within three months from the date of communication of this order after giving heating to the writ petitioner and after allowing the parties to lead evidence and after passing a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law ; (d) I make it clear that all points that have been raised in the writ petition are kept open to be decided by the Estate Officer, the respondent No. 3. I also make it clear that I have not gone into the merits of the submissions made on behalf of the parties in this writ application. The writ petition is thus disposed of "
(3.) The Estate Officer ultimately pasted an order on 11.1.96 directing eviction of the appellant under Section 5(1) of 1971 Act as alia for recovery of arrears of rent under Section 7(2) of the 1971 Act. It was against this order that the Appellant filed the second writ application, being writ petition No. 78 of 1996 which was dismissed by Judgment dated 21.5.1997 an noted earlier.;