ARSHAD ALI Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners have challenged the order dated Nov. 9, 2016 passed by the respondent No. 2, Deputy Controller, Kolkata Tikha Tenancy in connection with Misc. Case No.31 of 2015, by which the respondent no.2 held that premises No. 1, Acre Road, Kolkata-700017 does not come under the purview of tikha tenancy.

(2.) The petitioners claim that one Muhammad Yusuf purchased the structure situated on premises no.1, Acre Road, Kolkata-700017 (hereinafter referred to as "the said premises") from Chandra Sekhar Mallik and Nanda Kishore Mallik under registered deed dated Feb. 19, 1947 and took the lease of the land of the said premises under registered deed dated Feb. 19, 1947. Muhammad Yusuf sold out the structure of the said premises to Haji Rasul Baksh under registered deed dated Feb. 22, 1949 and granted lease of the land of the said premises in his favour under registered deed dated Feb. 22, 1949. The said Haji Rasul Baksh again sold the structure of the said premises to Sainoo Bibi and three others under registered deed dated May 18, 1955 and granted lease of the land of the said premises in their favour under registered deed dated May 21, 1955. The petitioners claiming to be the legal heirs of Sainoo Bibi and others filed return in Form-A by asserting their rights as tikha tenants in respect of the said premises. They also claim to have paid rent to the erstwhile landlord by producing rent receipts issued by the erstwhile landlord in favour of predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners in connection with the said premises before the respondent no. On the other hand, the respondent no.3 purchased 8 cottahs 9 chittacks of land together with structure situated on the said premises from Shyamali Mallik and others under registered deed of the year 2009. The claim of the petitioners as tikha tenants of the said premises was rejected by the respondent No. 2, Deputy Collector, Kolkata Tikha Tenancy by order dated Nov. 9, 2016 in connection with Misc. case No. 31 of 2015 - being proceeding under Sec. 5(3) of the West Bengal Tikha Tenancy (Acquisition and Regulation) Act, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as "Thika Tenancy Act of 2001). The said order of the respondent no.2 is under challenge in this writ petition on the ground of violation of the principles of natural justice.

(3.) Mr. Aniruddha Chatterjee, Learned Counsel representing the petitioners contends that the petitioners can invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court in spite of having alternative remedy, as the respondent no.2 has violated the principles of natural justice by not considering the series of authorities cited before the said respondent no.2 by Learned Advocate for the petitioners in the proceeding under Sec. 5(3) of the Tikha Tenancy Act of 2001. Relying on the unreported decision of Learned Single Judge of this Court in "M/s Kkalpana Industries (India) Ltd. and Anr. Vs. Union of India and Anr." (W.P. No. 1662(W) of 2017 decided on Feb. 4, 2017) and the decision of Division Bench of our High Court in case of "Artee Overseas Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India" reported in 2013 (4) CHN(CAL) 667 and the decision of the Supreme Court in "Radhey Shyam Vs. Chhabi Nath" reported in (2015) 5 SCC 423, Mr. Chatterjee submits that this Court can invoke the jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India in spite of having alternative remedy when the respondent no.2 has violated the principles of natural justice in passing the impugned order under challenge in the writ petition.