SUDHAMOY DATTA Vs. MAHITOSH KARMAKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN all these nine applications under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the sole question that arises for determination is whether an employee of Railway re-employed after attaining the age of superannuation can be said to be a "Government employee" within the meaning of Section 29(B) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act ("Act").

(2.) THE petitioner herein started nine different proceedings under Section 29(B) of the Act against his nine tenants for eviction on the ground of reasonable requirement. There is no dispute that the present petitioner was a Railway Doctor and was re-employed in the capacity of Medical Officer against the vacant post of DMO(G). There is also no dispute that at the time of filing of the present proceedings he was in re-employment as such. The case made out by the petitioner in all these nine applications is that he reasonably required the suit property for his own use and occupation inasmuch as he has been asked to vacate the Government quarter in his possession as he is the owner of the disputed property.

(3.) ULTIMATELY , by the orders impugned in these applications, the Rent Controller has dismissed all the aforesaid proceedings on the sole ground that a person re-employed after retirement cannot be said to be a "Government employee" within the meaning of Section 29(B) of the Act. It appears from the orders impugned herein that the Rent Controller has not gone into the other questions of merit.