PURNIMA MUKHERJEE Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition has been tiled by Smt. Purnima Mukherjee, Smt. Jyotsna Mukherjee and Smt. Ayesha Banerjee of 35, Shakespeare Sarani, Calcutta praying inter alia for an appropriate Writ Mandamus commanding the respondents to rescind, revoke, cancel and/ or aside the impugned notices dated, June 11, 1984 and June 14, 1984 d not to disturb the right, tide, and interest and possession of the petitioners in respect of the premises No. 35, Shakespeare Sarani, Calcutta and for other consequential reliefs on the grounds that the impugned order and/or notice dated June 11, 1984 does not mention the particular public purpose for which the said premises is sought to have been requisitioned, Id the order dated June 11, 1984 as well as order dated June 14, 1984 for placing the property in question at the disposal and control of the First and Acquisition Collector, Calcutta, were served only on June 15, 1954 by practising fraud on statute.

(2.) It is stated in details that the petitioners are absolute owners of the entire premises No. 35, Shakespeare Sarani, Calcutta, and in fact, Late Kamala Charan Mukherjee, the predecessor-in-title of the petitioners instituted a suit for eviction against the respondent No. 4 (The Institute of Historical Studies) on the ground of default in making payment of rent and ISO on the ground of reasonable requirement. It is further stated that the respondent No. 4 was a monthly tenant at a rental of Rs. 1,800/- per month according to English Calendar in respect of a portion of premises 10. 35, Shakespeare Sarani, Calcutta and the said suit was numbered as Ejectment Suit No. 407 of 1974 in the City Civil Court at Calcutta. In the aid suit an application was filed under Section 17(3) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act for striking out the defence of the tenant against delivery of possession as there was failure to comply with the provision of section 17(1) and/or section 17(2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act. Upon contested hearing, the application filed by the landlord was allowed and the respondent No. 4 moved a civil revision application in the Hon'ble Court and in terms of the order of the Hon'ble Court, the case sent back on remand for adjudication. The said suit is still pending and ready for final hearing. In the meantime, the notices bearing No. 4/84 reqn. dated, June 11, 1984 and No. 895 dated June, 14, 1984 issued under the signature of Deputy Secretary, Government of West Bengal, Land and Land Revenue Department, Requisition Branch was received by the petitioners on June 15, 1984 being a Friday at about 7.30 P.M. whereby the premises in occupation by the respondent No. 4 was sought to be requisitioned under the West Bengal Premises Requisition and Control (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1947 on the alleged ground that the said premises is "needed for a public purpose". It is further stated in the notice dated, June 14, 1984 that the petitioners will have to place the property at the disposal of the First Land Acquisition Collector on June 16, 1984 at 11.30 A.M.

(3.) The petitioners have made specific allegations that the order dated, June 11, 1984 which is a Monday and is signed by the Deputy Secretary, Government of West Bengal, and no step was taken to serve the order either on June 12, 1984 or on 13th and/or on June 14, 1984. The pretended order dated, June 11, 1984 and June 14, 1984 were sought to be served in the late evening i.e. at about 7.30 P.M. on June 15, 1984 (Friday) with the whole intention and motive of the respondents particularly the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 to practise fraud on statute and to make procedure of giving notice nugatory as the respondents knew very well that had it been served earlier the petitioners could have taken steps to move the Hon'ble Court to seek the reliefs in accordance with law. There is further allegations that section 3(2) of West Bengal Premises Requisition and Control (Temporary Provision) Act, 1947 envisages service of the notice on the occupier and the petitioners were surprised to find that when the officers of the respondent No. 2 came to take possession on June 16, 1984 they were found to be seated in the office room of the respondent No. 4 and there was a collusion and connivance of the respondents with each other.