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

Order Date: 19.06.2026 (judgment pronounced and uploaded)

Case Overview

  • Parties: Petitioners – T.D. Kumar and Brothers Private Ltd. (and another); Respondents – Union of India, Board of Trustees for the Port of Kolkata, and other officials of the Kolkata Port Trust. Represented by senior advocates Swatrup Banerjee (petitioner) and Arabinda Sen (respondent).
  • Nature of Proceeding: Revisional application (C.O 497 of 2022) against an order dated 29 January 2022 of the Additional District Judge, Howrah, which had upheld the Estate Officer’s eviction order dated 5 July 2019 under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (the “1971 Act”).
  • Background:
  • The petitioners obtained a short‑term lease of 5 cottahs 8 chittaks 8 sq ft (≈ 612 sq m) from the Calcutta Port Trust on 20‑21 June 1935, at Rs 6 per cottah per mense, with a security deposit of Rs 103 8/‑.
  • Possession was taken on 1 July 1935; the lease was initially for two months and thereafter month‑to‑month, terminable on 15‑day notice.
  • The Port Trust issued notices in 2012 alleging unauthorised sub‑letting to Madhu Kant Surelia, amalgamation of two adjacent plots, unauthorised construction, and non‑payment of rent.
  • A notice to quit was served on 4 June 2014, effective 16 July 2014; the lease was terminated for breach of rent, unauthorised construction and parting of the premises.
  • The Port Trust filed an application under the 1971 Act on 28 September 2016 (Proceedings No. 1542/1542R/1542D of 2017). Notices under Sections 4 and 7 were issued on 12 January 2017.
  • Joint inspections on 28 July 2017 and 14 March 2019 confirmed unauthorised constructions, amalgamation, and encroachment.
  • The Estate Officer assessed damages of Rs 7,88,793.71 for unauthorised occupation (period from 16 July 2014) and arrears of rent of Rs 15,38,207.34 for the period 31 July 1983 to 16 July 2014.
  • The petitioners filed writ petitions (W.P. 171/172 of 2019) seeking restoration of the joint‑inspection stage; the Division Bench of the High Court directed a fresh joint inspection on 31 May 2019 and required the petitioners to deposit Rs 10 lakh as a condition precedent.
  • After the fresh inspection, the Estate Officer again found unauthorised construction (R.C.C. 502.48 sq m, C.I.R. 251.24 sq m, C.I.R. godown 293.19 sq m) and ordered eviction within 15 days under Section 5(1) of the 1971 Act.
  • Legal Contentions:
  • Petitioners argued that the 1971 Act did not apply because the lease pre‑dated the Act (entry on 1 July 1935) and the premises were not “public premises” at that time; they relied on Suhas H. Pophale v. Oriental Insurance (2014) and on a 2021 Calcutta High Court decision in Board of Trustees for the Port of Kolkata v. Metal Box India Ltd..
  • Respondents contended that the Port Trust was the owner throughout, the lease was short‑term and terminable, the notice to quit was valid, and the 1971 Act applied to unauthorised occupants after the lease termination. They cited Life Insurance Corp. v. LIC (three‑judge bench) which overruled Pophale and affirmed the supremacy of the 1971 Act over rent‑control statutes.
  • Petitioners also claimed violation of natural justice, lack of opportunity to produce evidence, and issue estoppel from earlier writ proceedings.
  • Observations of the Court:
  • The court accepted that the land always belonged to the Kolkata Port Trust; the short‑term lease made the petitioners tenants, not owners.
  • The lease termination on 16 July 2014 rendered the petitioners unauthorised occupants under Section 2(g) of the 1971 Act.
  • The court affirmed that the 1971 Act, being a later special statute, overrides the Bengal Tenancy Act 1885, West Bengal Non‑Agricultural Tenancy Act 1949, and the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Acts 1956/1997.
  • The Supreme Court’s Life Insurance Corp. judgment was held to be binding, rendering Pophale “bad law”.
  • The deposit of Rs 10 lakh satisfied the condition imposed by the Division Bench; it did not constitute a waiver of the eviction proceedings.
  • The Estate Officer’s powers under Sections 4, 5, 5A, 5B, 7 and 8 of the 1971 Act were found to be exercised correctly; procedural requirements of notice, joint inspection, opportunity to file written notes, and consideration of evidence were complied with.
  • The court rejected the petitioners’ claim of issue estoppel, noting that the earlier writ petitions only sought a fresh inspection, not a reversal of the substantive findings of unauthorised occupation and rent arrears.
  • Final Outcome
  • The revisional application is dismissed.
  • The order of the Estate Officer dated 5 July 2019, directing eviction of T.D. Kumar & Bros and any other occupants, and the assessment of damages (Rs 7,88,793.71) and rent arrears (Rs 15,38,207.34) remain in force.
  • No further relief is granted to the petitioners.

Topics: Legal Precedent, Eviction Law, Public Premises Act