The pending proceeding before the Estate Officer was the appropriate forum for adjudication of disputed factual issues.

JUDGMENT

Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J. - The petitioner no.1-Club is a society registered under the West Bengal Societies Act, 1961 and petitioner no.2 is its Secretary. The writ petition has been filed, challenging a Notice dated September 24, 2004 whereby the Kolkata Port Trust (KoPT) asked for possession of the disputed premises to be handed over to the KoPT by the petitioners and payment of Rs.16,67,633/- as arrears of rent and taxes for the period between June, 1998 and August, 2004 in respect of occupation. In the said Notice, it was pleaded that a long term lease for 20 years was given to the petitioner from August 2, 1992 without any option for renewal. An allegation of unauthorised construction was also made therein.

2. The petitioners have also challenged a Bill dated September 24, 2004 containing a demand for compensation for alleged unauthorised use of occupation of KoPT-property by the petitioners.

3. The petitioners have also sought for a Rule in the nature of mandamus, commanding the respondents to grant rent receipts in the names of the members of the petitioner no.1-club after fixing the rate of rent and refunding the premium of Rs.5,27,040/- with interest as well as returning the Kisan Vikash Patras (KVPs) of value Rs.1,58,500/- for encashment by the petitioners.

4. It is argued by the petitioners that although negotiations were initially going on for grant of lease to the petitioner, ultimately the petitioners were granted monthly tenancy upon payment of the amount of Rs.5,27,040/-and deposit of KVPs worth Rs.1,58,500/-, as per the demand of the KoPT.

5. It is argued that the individual members of the petitioners, who were all along in possession of the premises, were granted individual monthly tenancies by the KoPT and, as such, the said members have been in authorised occupation of the said premises in such capacity.

6. In the absence of any termination of such tenancy in accordance with law, it is contended that the members of the petitioner no.1 have remained in authorised occupation, which was never rendered 'unauthorised' for the purpose of attracting the provisions of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (for short, 'the 1971 Act).

7. It is further submitted that no Notice under sections 4 and 7 of the 1971 Act were ever served by the KoPT on the petitioners. In fact, a proceeding under Section 5 of the 1971 Act was initiated against the petitioner without arriving at any preliminary finding that the petitioners are unauthorised occupants in respect of the property as envisaged in Section 4 of the said Act.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioners also argues that the proceeding for eviction and recovery of alleged arrear of rents are, in any event, palpably time-barred.

9. Learned counsel cites guidelines to prevent arbitrary use of powers to evict genuine tenants from public premises under the Control of Public Section Undertakings/financial institutions, published in the Gazette of India, Part-I, Section 1 dated June 8, 2002 vide Resolution No.21013/1/2000-POL.1 dated May 30, 2002. In Clause 2(iii) thereof, it is stipulated that a person in occupation of any premises should not be treated or declared to be an unauthorised occupant merely on service of Notice of termination of tenancy, but the fact of unauthorised occupation shall be decided by following the due procedure of law. Further, the contractual agreement shall not be wound up by taking advantage of the provisions of the 1971 Act.

10. It is submitted that the said guidelines have been blatantly violated in the present case.

11. It is contended by the petitioners that, since there was no registered lease-deed for a period of 20 years executed between the parties, as alleged in the Notice dated September 24, 2004, there was no valid Notice under Section 4 of the 1971 Act. That apart, the said Notice did not terminate the monthly tenancy of the petitioner, which is still existing.

12. The petitioners, it is submitted, were grant