The judgment emphasizes the applicability of the PP Act, the authority of the Estate Officer, and the importance of adhering to the limitation period for filing an appeal. It underscores the statutory parameters and legal principles governing the PP Act and the authority of the Estate Officer.

JUDGMENT

Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J. - The Estate Officer, Central Warehousing Corporation (CWC), by a composite order dated February 15, 2020 passed under Sections 5 and 7 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (for short, 'the PP Act'), directed eviction of the writ petitioner in WPA 7972 of 2022, namely, M/s Bharat Express and payment of a sum of Rs. 13,34,580 /- with interest as rental dues/license fees. It was recorded in the order that despite getting several opportunities the writ petitioner did not contest the proceedings.

2. Such order was not complied with by the petitioner. The CWC filed a writ petition bearing WPO 1276 of 2022, primarily complaining of police inaction in implementing the eviction order of the Estate Officer. Vide order dated March 14, 2022, the writ petition was disposed of by directing police assistance to be given to the CWC and its agents in implementing the order dated February 15, 2020 in respect of the disputed property.

3. An appeal, bearing APO 38 of 2022, was preferred against the said order dated March 14, 2022. In the appeal, for the first time, the judgment debtor/appellant contended that the original proprietor of the judgment debtor concern had died prior to the order dated March 14, 2022 and that no notice of the writ petition had been served on the judgment debtor.

4. The appeal was disposed of on April 8, 2022 by a Division Bench, granting liberty to the appellant to file an appropriate application for recall in the writ petition; if so filed, the same was to be considered and decided in accordance with law.

5. Accordingly, G.A. 1 of 2022 was filed in connection with WPO 1276 of 2022.

6. Soon thereafter, the judgment debtor filed a writ petitioner bearing WPA No. 7972 of 2022 against the parent order of eviction dated February 15, 2020.

7. G.A. 1 of 2022 and WPA 7972 of 2022 are heard together and being hereby disposed of.

8. The first question raised by learned counsel for the judgment debtor/writ petitioner is whether the PP Act is applicable at all to the disputed premises. The term 'public premises' as defined in Section 2 (e) of the PP Act contemplates premises 'belonging to, or taken on lease or requisitioned by' the Central Government or the other entities mentioned therein. Such criterion, it is submitted, is not satisfied in the present case. By placing reliance on Annexure P-3 to the writ petition, that is, WPA 7972 of 2022, it is argued that the said notice to de-hire the disputed warehouse dated November 26, 2018, published by the CWC, mentions Kolkata Port Trust as 'lessor' in respect of the premises. So, it is not owned by the CWC.

9. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties and scrutinising the materials on record, it is evident that the CWC is a corporation and a Public Sector Undertaking under the governance and control of the Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution of the Central Government, operating primarily to provide storage facility of food grains and other notified commodities under the Warehousing Corporation Act, 1962.The limited storage licence granted to the judgment debtor was duly terminated by the CWC, its licensor, rendering the judgment debtor an unauthorised occupant within the purview of the PP Act.

10. Even if the Kolkata Port Trust was a lessor and the CWC a lessee, such jural relationship squarely makes the premises 'public premises' in terms of Section 2 (e) (2) (ii) of the PP Act, which includes any premises taken on lease by, or on behalf of, any corporation established under a Central Act and owned or controlled by the Central Government.

11. Hence, by all statutory parameters, the PP Act is squarely applicable to the premises-in-question. Thus, the Estate Officer of the CWC acted well within jurisdiction to pass the impugned eviction order.

12. The petitioner cites 2019(3) ICC 743 (S.C.) [Kaikhosrou (Chick) KavasjiFramji&Anr. V. Union of India &Anr.] for the proposition that ownership and title o