The provisions of section 157 of the Calcutta Improvement Trust Act, 1911, do not authorize the CIT to seek police assistance for evicting a tenant from a flat in the housing estate, as the circumstances mentioned in the section are not applicable to such cases. A tenant has a legal right to hold the tenancy and challenge any impugned notices that infringe their right to property.

( 1 ) THE Calcutta Improvement Trust (hereinafter referred to as the said Trust), is the owner of an Industrial Housing Estate at Christopher Road, Calcutta. Flat No. 5 in Block II of the said Estate was admittedly allotted in September, 1954 to the petitioner, at a rental of Rs. 19/- per month on the basis of an Agreement executed in the prescribed form at the direction of the said Trust in favour of the Estate's Officer of the said Trust, who is now known as Estate's Manager.

( 2 ) THE said agreement, amongst others contains stipulations for the payment of agreed rent for each Calendar month, on or before 12th of the month, for which it is due and the tenancy could be terminated on 15 days notice on either side expiring with a month's notice. There is a further stipulation that the tenant should agree to abide by the Rules appended to the agreement and those Rules would also form part of the agreement in question. The said Rules disclosed that the concerned flats were designed for persons of moderate income and were not built for profit. A less than economic rent has been fixed to make them available to such persons and the tenants would be selected with some care. The said rules lay down further, the rights and obligations of the tenants and has not either mentioned any other scheme under which the tenancy was created or how or under what circumstances the stipulated rent could be enhanced.

( 3 ) AFTER duly occupying the tenancy in question for a long time, a notice dated 27th January 1972, was received by the petitioner for producing in the office of the said Estate's Manager, a certificate from his present employer stating the exact employment he holds and his total monthly salary for the purpose of proving his eligibility for direct tenancy in respect of the flat. He was further informed that if his wage limit was Rs. 350/- per month, he should be allowed to retain the concerned flat after giving a direct tenancy till his wages would reach Rs. 500/- per month and only on payment of an additional charge of 10% of the income exceeding Rs. 350/- per month.

( 4 ) SUCH action on the part of the authorities of the said Trust has been impeached in this rule. The petitioner has contended amongst others that since he held a direct tenancy under the said calling for additional information and a direction to pay higher rent was improper and unauthorized, apart from being without jurisdiction, a bi-trary and motivated. It is further contended that the action was ultra vires the Calcutta Improvement Trust Act, 1911. Further, it appears that thereafter, another notice dated 8th February 1974 was received by the petitioner, informing him that if the informations as were asked for by the earlier letter do not reach within a stipulated time then he would be evicted with the co-operation of the police in terms of section 157 of the Calcutta Improvement Trust Act, 1911, which is to the following effect: 157". . . . . . . . . (1) the Commissioner of Police and his subordinates shall be bound to co-operate with the Chairman for carrying into effect and enforcing provision of this Act. (2) It shall be duty of concerning police who is subordinate to the Commissioner of Police (i) to communicate without delay to the proper officer or servant of the particular any information which he receives a design to commit or of the Commission of any offence against this Act or any rule made herein, and (ii) to assist the Chairman or any officer or servant of the particular reasonably demanding his aid for the lawful exercise of any power vesting in the Chairman or any such officer servant under this Act or any such rules".

( 5 ) ON receipt of the aforesaid communication, the petitioner duly informed the authorities of the said Trust that the terms of the tenancy agreement, some particulars, whereof have been mentioned hereinbefore, could not be changed unilaterally by the said Trust or its Officers and as such he was not obliged to produ