Authority: Calcutta High Court (Civil Revisionary Jurisdiction – Appellate Side)

Order Date: 19 June 2026 (judgment pronounced and uploaded)

Case Overview

  • Parties: Petitioners – Tata Scob Dealers Cal Ltd (referred to as petitioner No. 1) and an associate; Opposite parties – Union of India and the Board of Trustees of the Port of Kolkata (Kolkata Port Trust).
  • Counsel: Petitioners were represented by Senior Advocates Swatrup Banerjee, Somali Mukhopadhyay and Sariful Haque. Opposite side counsel were Senior Advocate Arabinda Sen and Advocate Tapan Bhanja.
  • Background: The premises (approximately 317.73 sq m, Shalimar P.T.R. Siding No. 16, Howrah) were leased to the petitioners on 13 Aug 1945 under a short‑term lease (initial two‑month term, thereafter month‑to‑month, terminable on 15‑day notice). The lease was governed by the Calcutta Port Trust Act, 1890 and later the Major Port Trust Act, 1963. The lease continued until a notice to quit dated 8 Aug 2014 terminated it effective 1 Sept 2014 on grounds of non‑payment of rent, unauthorised construction, and unauthorised parting of the premises to Madhu Kant Surelia (petitioner No. 2).
  • Statutory Framework: The dispute centred on the applicability of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (the “1971 Act”). Petitioners argued that, because they entered the premises before the Act’s retrospective date (16 Sept 1958) and were tenants under the Bengal Tenancy Act, 1885 (later the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Acts), the 1971 Act should not apply. Opposite parties contended that the premises were “public premises” under Section 2(e) of the 1971 Act and that the petitioners became unauthorised occupants after the lease termination.
  • Procedural History:

1. An application under the 1971 Act was filed on 7 Oct 2016 (Proceedings No. 1543/2017). Notices under Sections 4 and 7 were issued on 12 Jan 2017 demanding payment of rent arrears (Rs 2,47,175) and damages (Rs 1,02,483) with interest.

2. Joint inspections were conducted on 28 July 2017 and 14 Mar 2019, revealing unauthorised constructions, amalgamation of plots, and use of the premises for manufacturing.

3. The Estate Officer issued a final eviction order on 7 July 2019, directing vacancy within 15 days and authorising the Port Trust to claim damages.

4. Petitioners filed writ petitions (WP 171/2019 and WP 172/2019) challenging the procedure and alleging denial of natural justice. The Single Judge upheld the Estate Officer’s order, granting a fortnight to file written notes of objection.

5. The Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court (order dated 23 May 2019) directed a fresh joint inspection on 31 May 2019, required a Rs 10 lakh deposit as a condition precedent, and ordered the Estate Officer to hear the parties afresh and decide by 5 July 2019.

6. The Estate Officer complied, re‑inspected on 31 May 2019, and on 5 July 2019 reiterated that unauthorised construction was proved and that the petitioners were liable to vacate and pay damages.

7. The petitioners appealed (Misc. Appeal No. 125 of 2019) before the Additional District Judge, 1st Court at Howrah. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the Estate Officer’s order.

  • Legal Submissions:

Petitioners relied on the Supreme Court decision in Suhas H. Pophale v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (2014) which held that occupants who entered before the Act’s retrospective date were exempt. They also cited Board of Trustees for the Port of Kolkata v. Metal Box India Ltd. (2021) and a 2019 Single Judge decision distinguishing the two cases.

Opposite parties argued that the Port Trust was the owner at the time of entry, the lease was terminable, and the Act applied to all public premises, including those owned by statutory bodies. They cited Kaiser‑I‑Hind Pvt. Ltd. v. National Textile Corp. (2002) confirming the constitutional validity of the 1971 Act and its overriding effect over rent‑control statutes.

  • Higher‑Court Reasoning:

1. The Court held that the lease termination on 8 Aug 2014 rendered the petitioners unauthorised occupants under Section 2(g) of the 1971 Act.

2. The premises are “public premises” as defined in Section 2(e) because they belong to the Board of Trustees of the Port of Kolkata, a body constituted under the Major Port Trust Act, 1963.

3. The Court accepted the Supreme Court’s later‑bench pronouncements (Life Insurance Corporation of India v. LIC (2022) and Ashoka Marketing Ltd. v. Punjab National Bank (1990)) that overrule Suhas Pophale and confirm that the 1971 Act prevails over rent‑control legislation irrespective of the date of entry.

4. The deposit of Rs 10 lakh was a condition precedent ordered by the Division Bench; its acceptance does not constitute a waiver of the statutory eviction process.

5. The Estate Officer was found to have complied with the procedural safeguards of the 1971 Act, including issuance of notices, opportunity for joint inspection, and allowance of written notes. No evidence was adduced by the petitioners to rebut the findings of unauthorised construction or rent arrears.

6. The Court rejected the petitioners’ claim of issue‑estoppel, noting that the earlier writ petitions sought only a fresh inspection and did not challenge the substantive findings of unauthorised occupation.

7. The Court reiterated that the 1971 Act is a special statute with a non‑obstante clause; it overrides the Bengal Tenancy Act, the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Acts, and the Rent Control Acts.

8. The Court dismissed the revisional application, upholding the order of the Additional District Judge and the Estate Officer.

Final Outcome

  • The revisional application (C.O 498 of 2022) is dismissed. The eviction order dated 5 July 2019, the Rs 10 lakh deposit requirement, and the liability for unpaid rent (Rs 2,47,175) and damages (Rs 1,02,483) remain in force. The petitioners must vacate the premises within the stipulated period and comply with the damage‑recovery assessment.

Topics: Eviction, Public Premises Act, Landlord‑Tenant Law