JUDGMENT :

Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.

1. The present revisional applications are preferred against the same judgment and order, whereby an appeal under Section 9 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (in short “the P.P. Act”) was allowed, thereby setting aside the order of eviction passed under Section 5 of the P.P. Act by the Estate Officer.

2. The Board of Trustees for the Port of Kolkata (hereinafter referred to as “the KoPT”) has preferred C.O. No. 746 of 2020, substantially challenging the decision of the appellate forum, reversing the order of eviction.

3. Learned senior counsel appearing for the KOPT contends that the finding of the Appellate Court that the premises-in-question are not governed by the P.P. Act, is not tenable in the eye of law. Learned counsel argues that the Appellate Court erroneously interpreted the ratio laid down in Suhas H. Pophale Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited and its Estate Officer, reported at (2014) 4 SCC 657, as followed in Band Box Private Limited Vs. Estate Officer, Punjab and Sind Bank and another, reported at (2014) 16 SCC 321. It was held in the former report that there are two categories of occupants who come within the purview of the P.P. Act -persons who have come in occupation of public premises after September 16, 1958, when the predecessor statute of the P.P. Act, 1971 (being the P.P. Act, 1958) came into force and persons in occupation of properties which went under the ownership of Government or associated entities, fall within the definition of “public premises” as contemplated in the Act. The Appellate court proceeded to hold that since Metal Box, the petitioner in C.O. No. 1411 of 2021, came into occupation of the disputed premised prior to September 16, 1958, Metal Box is not an “unauthorised occupant” of the property, since it falls within the exceptions contemplated in Suhas H. Pophale (supra) and Band Box Private Limited (supra).

4. It is argued that the said distinction has to be seen in proper perspective. Although Metal Box came into occupation of the suit property prior to September 16, 1958, the property-in-question was all along a “public premises” within the definition of the 1958 as well as 1971 Acts. As such, when the notice under Section 4 of the P.P. Act was issued and the proceeding under Section 5 of the said Act initiated subsequently, in view of the initial authority under which the Metal Box was in occupation having expired by efflux of time, the Metal Box had become an unauthorised occupant as envisaged in the P.P. Acts.

5. Learned counsel next assails the observation of the Appellate Court that there was violation of Natural Justice on the part of the Estate Officer on several grounds. The Appellate Court had found that, since the summery and evidence adduced in the proceeding before the Estate Officer was not recorded in consonance with Section 8 of the P.P. Act and Rule 5 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Rules, 1971 (for the sake of brevity “the Rules”) and no opportunity was given to the occupant to adduce oral evidence and/or to cross-examine the KoPT on the documents relied on by the latter, the order of the Estate Officer was vitiated.

6. Learned senior counsel for KoPT argues that at no point of time did the Metal Box seek liberty or leave to adduce oral evidence. Since a proceeding for eviction under Section 5 is of a summary nature, the matter was decided on affidavits and the materials produced before the Estate Officer. There was no question of depriving the occupant of any right, to which the occupant is otherwise entitled, since repeated opportunities of hearing were given to the occupant that is Metal Box.

7. As regards the other observation of the Appellate Court, regarding the rent for the disputed property being governed by the Rehabilitation Scheme and not the Schedule of Rates framed by the KoPT under the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963 .(in short, “the M.P.T. Act”), learned seni