Sanjib Banerjee, J.

The scheme and import of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 are called into question in this appeal from an order passed on the Arya respondents petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In effect, the learned Single Judge held that an alleged unauthorised occupant of public premises had a right for his version of things to be considered by the landlord before the matter could be brought before an estate officer under the said Act.

2. The relevant facts are not much in dispute. The appellants issued a notice on July 28, 2006 requiring the writ petitioners to deliver vacant and peaceful possession of the relevant premises to the authorised representative of the appellants. The grounds put forth appear from the material portion of the notice:

"WHEREAS a lease for 30 years with one option of renewal with enact from 11.10.1990 in respect of 6437.435 sq.m of land at Transport Depot Road was granted to you with certain terms and conditions.

AND WHEREAS you have wrongfully parted with possession and inducted number of sub-tenants without the prior approval in writing from Kolkata Port Trust, the lessor, which constitutes a major breach of lease terms.

NOW, THEREFORE, I hereby give you notice to quit, vacate and deliver up vacant and peaceful possession of the property as detailed under schedule hereunder on 01.02.07 at 10-30 a.m. to the authorized representative of Kolkata Port Trust, who will be present at the site on the date and time as mentioned above. It is also hereby notified that all your relationship with the Board of Trustees for the Port of Kolkata stands determined. It is also notified that in case of default in handing over possession of the land mentioned in the schedule hereunder as aforesaid, Kolkata Port Trust shall be at liberty to take recourses of law, civil or criminal or both, as may be advised without prejudice to any other rights, which may be available under law, and you will be held liable all costs and consequences arising therefrom.

It may be mentioned that there is no alternative but to place the matter before the ld. Estate Officer. The Adjudicating Authority under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 in case of default in compliance as above on the part of the notice ..."

3. The writ petitioners issued a reply on August 11, 2006 denying breach of the terms of the lease and insisting that they were in possession of the premises. They contended that they were entitled to sublet the premises and urged that the notice to quit be withdrawn. The short reply may be seen in its entirety:

"We are surprised and shocked to receive your above notice threatening termination of our lease in respect of the above mentioned land on the breach of lease terms which is denied by us, as we have not parted with possession of the above land leased to us and the entire premises is under our possession and control.

Please note that at the time of renewal of the lease on 23rd December, 1997 for the period of Fresh Lease from 1990 to 2020 the subletting permission was also granted to us and alongwith the lease rent we are paying subletting fees promptly on the due date each month and there is no arrear in lease rent or subletting fee.

Please also refer to your letter ref. Lnd. 4628/1II dated 25th September, 2000 vide which you bad intimated to us that the lease rent and the subletting fees were increased by 25%, from 11.10.2000 and the increased amount was and is being billed by you and is being paid by us on the due dates promptly.

In view of the above we view your above notice unjustified and incorrect and request to kindly vacate or withdraw the above illegal notice herewith."

4. The writ petition followed in January, 2007, a few days before the date set by the appellants for the writ petitioners to make over possession of the premises. In the petition it was urged that the writ petitioners had the authority to sublet the premises and