The PP Act's silence on fair rent fixation does not override the applicability of the Rent Control Act in this regard, allowing for such proceedings under the Rent Control Act.

Harish Tandon, J.

The short question which fell for consideration before this Court is whether the proceeding for eviction initiated under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971, hereinafter referred to as 'PP Act', should remain stayed till the proceeding for fixation of fair rent filed before the Rent Control under the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 is finally decided.

2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the petitioner no. 1 was allowed to use and occupy 2000 sq. meter of land belonging to the opposite party no. 1 on the basis of a letter dated 18.04.1990 describing it as a licensee for the purpose of storage and repair of the empty containers at a monthly payment of Rs. 400/- per 100 sq. meter per month together with the occupier's share of Municipal Tax levied thereupon. The monthly payment was enhanced from time to time until the opposite party no. 1 by notification dated 02.03.2011 intended to enhance the same. The petitioner filed an application before the Rent Control for determination of the fair rent under the provision of West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997. The opposite party no. 1 appeared in the said proceeding and raised a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the said proceeding, which is still pending.

3. The opposite party no. 1 initiated a proceeding for eviction of the petitioners from the suit premises by issuing a notice under Sections 4 and 7 of the PP Act. The petitioner filed reply to a show cause issued under Section 4 of the PP Act and thereafter filed another application for stay of the proceeding pending before the Estate Officer till the disposal of the proceeding before the Rent Control. The Estate Officer rejected the said application on the ground that once the premises is governed by the PP Act, it overrides the applicability of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 and therefore the plea of the petitioners that the eviction proceeding should remain stayed till the disposal of Rent Control proceeding is not tenable.

4. Various judgments are cited by the Estate Officer in support of the aforesaid findings, which this Court feels need not be gone into for the present purposes. However, the emphasis appears to have been made on a judgment of the Apex Court rendered in case of Banatwala & Co. v. L.I.C of India reported in AIR 2011 SC 3611, which was also cited before the Estate Officer on the proposition of law that if the PP Act does not contain any provision relating to fixation of fair rent that does not impliedly override the applicability of the Act of 1997 and therefore the proceeding for fixation of fair rent is maintainable under the said Act.

5. The Estate Officer distinguished the judgment on the premise that the same was decided in relation to the premises held by Life Insurance Corporation of India, which is a local authority and exempted under the provision of the Rent Control Act, which cannot apply in the present case as the Kolkata Port Trust is governed by the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963.

6. The learned Advocate for the petitioner vehemently submits that the findings of the Estate Officer is contrary to the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in case of Banatwala & Co. (Supra), wherein it was held that the statutory authority may be competent to initiate a proceeding for eviction under the PP Act but there is no exclusion of the provision of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 in relation to the fixation of fair rent and therefore the decision of the Rent Control in this regard binds the Port Trust as well.

7. On the other hand, the opposite party submits that once the provisions of the PP Act applies to the premises owned by the Board of Trusties under the Major Port Trusts Act, it necessarily excludes the operation of the Rent Control Legislation and therefore the provision for fixation of fair rent does not apply.

8. On the conspectus of the relevant submissions advanced by the learned Advocates, this Court feels a