The High Court has the power to entertain a writ application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India only if there is a violation of the principles of natural justice or if the order is passed without jurisdiction.

Siddhartha Chattopadhyay, J.

1. This revisional application has been filed for quashing the order dated 31.10.2015 passed by the learned Estate Officer of the opposite party in connection with the proceeding bearing No. E.O./421/0813 under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971.

2. According to the petitioner/opposite party i.e. Life Insurance Corporation of India instituted the said proceedings for eviction of the present petitioner on multifarious grounds such as for revision of rent with effect from 01.04.2002 and for execution of a fresh lease agreement and it was also contended in the said proceeding that the present petitioner is a defaulter since April 2002 and that the opposite party was entitled to terminate the lease in respect of the suit premises being Flat No. 5, at 13, Loudon Street, Calcutta – 700017. Such notice was issued on February 24, 2011 and the opposite party alleged that the petitioner is an unauthorized occupant of the said premises.

3. Challenging the same he had filed a Title Suit bearing No. 674 of 2011 before the learned Judge 6th Bench, City Civil Court, claiming a decree of declaration that he is the monthly tenant of the suit property and that the purported notice dated 24th February, 2011, is void ab initio and to cancel the said notice as well as permanent injunction restraining the defendant corporation from disturbing and interfering with his peaceful use and occupation of the suit property. Initially he was granted an interim injunction which has been extended time to time. On 3rd June, 2013, due to cease work of the bar of the City Civil Court, no step could be taken for extension of the said interim order on rd June, 2013. After getting the notice of eviction from the Estate Officer, he had filed an application on 04.12.2013 praying for summary disposal of the said eviction proceeding and cancellation of the show cause notice dated 17.08.2013 issued by the learned Estate Officer. After taking adjournments the opposite party (Life Insurance Corporation of India) filed a written objection and as against this present petitioner filed a rejoinder to the said written objection. Hearing commenced at the instance of the learned Estate Officer. Sometimes learned Estate Officer was not available and the parties had taken adjournments time to time. On 30.09.2015 learned Estate Officer has fixed date for hearing on the maintainability petition as a last chance and on that day the petitioner’s learned Advocate did not appear. Accordingly, learned Estate Officer, (despite being given opportunities the petitioner did not take part in argument) he had recorded that it would not be appropriate to extend further opportunity and reserved the order. However, on 31.10.2015 he had proceeded to pass the impugned order which purports to be final order in the eviction proceedings. Therefore, a technical problem arose that in the entire order sheets one i.e. page No. 19 was missing and as a consequence the present petitioner demanded a complete order from the learned Estate Officer. On 09.11.2015 the learned Estate Officer forwarded a copy of page 19 of the impugned order.

4. According to the petitioner, the impugned order is manifestly vitiated by material irregularity in the exercise of the learned Estate Officer jurisdiction under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act 1971. In the impugned order the learned Estate Officer has recorded that the petitioner was not attending the hearing to complete his arguments on the maintainability application and he reserved his order on the maintainability application. According to the petitioner, the learned Estate Officer ought not to have disposed of the main matter without considering the maintainability petition. Ventilating his such grievances along with the grievance that he was not given an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses of the opposite party, the learned Estate Officer came to a finding which is an