JAGU SINGH Vs. M. SHAUKAT ALI & ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Premises No. 9, Esplanade East, belonged to Messrs. T. E. Thompson and Company Limited. Sometime in 1939, the petitioner became a tenant under the said Company. It is stated in the petition that the tenancy was in respect of a shop room; but in reality, a road-side space in front of the east side gate was let out to the petitioner. It is the kind of space which is occupied by hawkers, abutting the pavements of Calcutta. The company issued rent bills to the petitioner. The subject matter of the tenancy was at first described as - "East side gate of 9, Esplanade East." This description has from time to time changed, together with the rent. In June, 1940, I find the description to be "front portion of east side gate" and the rent is Rs. 100. It is alleged by the respondents that in Oct., 1942, the Central Government took a verbal lease of the front portion of the premises. In Oct., 1943, the property was purchased by Ram Gopal Shaw Estates. It further appears that by this time the property had been divided into two parts, namely, 9-A and 9-B and the rent bill issued by Ram Gopal Shaw Estates $o the petitioner is in respect of 9-B, Esplanade Row East, "Outside Stall". In March, 1946, I find the rent to be Rs. 80. In Aug., 1948, the description has been changed into "one side stall", and the rent is Rs. 70. In Dec., 1948, I find that the rental of Rs. 105 has been charged. From March, 1951, the receipts mention 9-B, Esplanade Row East only. This description has continued even in 1953 together with the rental of Rs. 105 per month. It is stated in the affidavit of P.N. Khanna, the Estate Manager of the Government of India Estates at Calcutta, affirmed on the 6th May, 1954, that in or about Nov., 1952, the Deputy Secretary of the Government of India, Department of Supply, 6, Esplanade East, Calcutta, hired the front portion of Premises No. 9, Esplanade East, now known as 9-B, Esplanade East, from Messrs. T. E. Thompson and Company Limited, at a rent of Rs. 1,700 per month. It was further agreed that the Government would pay the occupier's share of Municipal taxes and all costs of repair. Rent Bills have been disclosed showing that the Ram Gopal Shaw Estates Limited, Calcutta, were issuing receipts to the Manager, Government of India Estates, 6, 'Esplanade East, Calcutta, in respect of 9-B, Esplanade Row East, at the rate of Rs. 1,700 per month. On the 21st Jan., 1952, the Deputy Superintendent, Census Operations, West Bengal, then situate in 9-B, Esplanade East, Calcutta, wrote a letter to the Estate Manager, Government of India, as follows:-

(2.) This was followed by another letter on the 5th March, 1952, complaining that several hawkers were occupying the road front of premises No. 91B, Esplanade East, without any permission, and had of late set up wooden platforms on the road flank portion without any permission or intimation to Government. Immediate action was requested to remove the unauthorised intruders. 9-B, Esplanade Row East, was used during the War years for the of purpose of godown accommodation of the several offices of the Government of India situate in Calcutta, and the front gates of the premises were kept closed by baffle-walls. It appears that the petitioner occupied the space between the baffle-wall and the road front and at some stage or other had built a wooden platform. Such hawkers' platforms are by now a common sight in this particular part of the city. No one took any notice as long as the baffle-walls were in existence. It is now proposed to dismantle the baffle-walls and to clear the entrances. Hence the trouble has started. On 8th Oct., 1953, the following letter was issued by the Manager, Government of India Es-states, as the "competent authority", to the petitioner, under section 3 of the Government Premises (Eviction) Act, 1950 (No. XXVII of 1950), hereinafter- referred to as the "Act" :

(3.) This Rule was issued on the 2nd Oct., 1953, calling upon the respondents to show cause why a Writ in the nature of Mandamus should not be made directing them to forbear from wing effect to the notice dated 8th Oct., 1953, and evicting the petitioner by force or otherwise and also to withdraw and or cancel the said notice, and why an order in the nature of a Certiorari should not be made.