TRUSTEES IMPROVEMENT OF CALCUTTA Vs. NITYANANDA PAUL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This memorandum of appeal from original order, is directed against the judgment and order dt. 6th Aug. 1979, passed in Civil Rule No. 1791(W) of 1977, by Bimal Chandra Basak, J. By that order, the learned Judge has made the Rule absolute and directed the issue of or Writ of Mandamus restraining the respondents before him, from proceeding against the writ petitioner under the provisions of the West Bengal Government Premises (Tenancy Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the said 1976 Act). While making such order, the learned Trial Judge, however, made it clear that if the Respondents before him have any other right under any other law or provisions of the statute, the order as made, will not prevent them from proceeding with the same in accordance with law.

(2.) The writ petitioner, who is Respondent 1 before us, claimed in his petition, that after the partition of Bengal, he along with the other members of his family, came to West Bengal in search of permanent hearth and home and in fact, on 30th March 1948, they came to Calcutta and took shelter in a abandoned Muslim house at Ultadanga, Calcutta, being premises No. 427A, Harish Neogi Road, P. S. Maniktala, Calcutta-67 (hereinafter referred to as the said premises), on 29th March 1950 and had been residing in two rooms in the said premises. It has further been stated by him that the owner of the said premises at all material times was one Sk. Kalimuddin Choudhury of 142/1, Jhowtola Road, Calcutta and he filed a case being Case No. 977 of 1951 before the competent authority under West Bengal Act XVI, 1951 for eviction of the unauthorised occupants including the petitioner.

(3.) It has also been stated by the writ petitioner that on the basis of the Competent Authority's directions, there was an enquiry and he was proved to be a displaced person, having no property in India and it has also been observed on consideration of his affidavit that the petitioner had no intention to go back to East Pakistan. It has been said, that after such enquiry and since he was proved to be a displaced person, he was given protection under the said Act XVI of 1951 and necessary recordings were made for favour of furnishing alternative accommodation to him. It was also the case of the petitioner that pending the provisions for alternative accommodation as mentioned above, the petitioner in the case as mentioned above, was assessed and directed to pay Rs. 30/- per month to the said owner Sk. Kalimuddin Chaudhury and in fact, the petitioner occupied the two concerned rooms in the said premises on regular payment of the compensation as mentioned above. The petitioner has stated that such position continued up to 1965, when the said premises was acquired by the Trustees for the improvement of Calcutta (hereinafter referred to as the said Trust). Even though the petitioner was not provided with the alternative accommodation, as was ordered by the competent authority in the case as mentioned above and as indicated earlier, which was disposed of on 27th Feb. 1954, on such acquisition of the said premises, the petitioner has stated, that he was advised to file an application before the Chairman of the said Trust for allotment of one flat at L.I.G.H. Scheme-I under the said Trust, as he had no shelter in Calcutta and was protected from eviction in the manner as indicated hereinbefore. The petitioner has stated that at the time of making such application, his income was Rs. 245/- only per month and he was serving as Junior Development Officer in Life Insurance Corporation of India. It was his case that on consideration of his claim, he was allotted a flat by the said Trust and he has further averred that for convenience of enjoyment, the occupants exchanged their flats with notice to the said Trust and since then, the petitioner has been residing in a one roomed flat being No. 39 of Block No. IX, C.I.T. Scheme L.I.G.G.-I at the said premises which has been renumbered as Premises No.107/108/4, Ultadanga Main Road, Calcutta-57. It was the further case of the petitioner that the said Trust had acquired such premises in which, he was residing at the relevant time with the protection against eviction till alternative accommodation was received and the said Trust acquired the said premises with such covenant running with the said premises and the petitioner too was allotted one flat in the manner as indicated above and hence, his induction in the said premises was on the basis of the covenant and condition running with the said premises which as mentioned hereinbefore, was acquired by the said Trust and the same was not as per general provisions prevailing for induction of tenants in the flats belonging to the said Trust. It was the further case of the said petitioner that he has not as yet been provided with alternative accommodation.