SALIL KUMAR MUKHERJEE Vs. ARUN DASGUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner no. 1 has claimed that in the name of his wife, the petitioner no. 2, he owns Premises no. 198, Harish Mukherjee' Road (since re-numbered as No. 186b Harish mukherjee Road ). P. S. Bhowanipore, Calcutta. At the material point of time the petitioner no. 1 was employed as an Assistant Commissioner of Police, Detective Department, Calcutta and occupied as his residence government Quarter No. 2, Tiljala Road, P. S. Beniapukur which was alloted to him by his employer, the State of West Bengal. The opposite parties to these Rules are alleged to be described as monthly tenants in respect of different portions of Premises No. 136b, Harish Mukherjee road.

(2.) ON 23rd November, 19s2 the petitioner No. 1 was served with a Memo issued by the Commissioner of Police, Calcutta stating since you are retiring from service on superannuation shortly, you are required to vacate the Government quarters No, 2, Tiljala Road, Calcutta and move to your own house at 186, Harish Mukherjee Road. On 23rd december, 1982 a learned advocate on behalf of the petitioner no. 2 issued notices to different tenants of Premises No. 186 Harish Mukherjee road puporting to determine their respective tenancies on the expiry of the month of January, 1983. The learned advocate inter-alia stated in the said notices that the husband of the present petitioner, no. 2, who had been occupying a government quarter was due to retire from service and that the premises were reasonably required for occupation of the landlord and her family. The notices mentioned that in case they failed to vacate, ejectment suits would be instituted against them. On 7th March, 1983 the petitioners filed before the Rent controller, Calcutta applications under section 29b (1) of the West bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 for recovery of possession of the respective premises occupied by the opposite parties on the grounds specified in clause (ff) of sub-section (1) of section 13 of the West bengal Premises Tenancy Act.

(3.) BY his order dated 13th December, 1984 the Rent Controller, calcutta dismissed the said application of the petitioners on the ground that the applications under section 291b of 'the said Act could not be entertained as the applicant no. 1 had retired from government service before the date of filing of the said applications. being aggrieved, by the said order, the petitioners moved this court in revision and obtained the present Rules.