ORDER This application relates to a dispute arising in respect of a lease granted by the trustees for the Improvement Trust of Calcutta in favour of Calcutta Electric Supply Corporation Limited. By notification dated 13th of November, 1956 the Trustees for the Improvement Trust of Calcutta as the lessor granted a lease in respect of two brick built rooms measuring 12 ft x 10 ft. and 14 ft x 10 ft. on a flat no. A/2A on the around floor of Busti Improvement Scheme No.1 (Sinah Bagan) for the purpose of enabling Calcutta Electric Supply Limited to instal its transformer, switch gear and other equipments for supplying electric energy to the laid Basti Improvement Scheme No.1 and others for a term of ton years from 11th of August, 1955 with an option of renewal on a rent of Rs. 100/- per month exclusive of municipal taxes and such rent was payable according to English calendar month by the 7th of every month. The renewal clause entitles the lessor to continue it for another ten years on the same covenants and term as contained in the lease. At the request of the lessee by letter dated 15th or April. 1956 the lessor agreed to renew the lease and communicated its decision by its letter dated 26th of May, 1966 for a period of ten years with an option of renewal for a further period of 10 years at a monthly rent of Rs. 120/- plus apportioned amount of occupier share of corporation rates and taxes. By letter dated 20th of September, 1975 Calcutta Electric Supply Corporation expressed its desire to renew the lease for a period of ten years and the same terms and conditions. Thereafter after the expiry of the lease on 10th of August, 1975 the petitioner bas been in occupation of the demise premises and rent on paying rent to the Trustees for the Improvement Trust of Calcutta and the Trustees have accepted the said rent upto the month of June 1978 and. according to the petitioner, it bas been bolding over the demise premises after the expiry of the lease with the consent of the Trustees of the Improvement Trust of Calcutta. 2. according to the petitioner, it bas been bolding over the demise premises after the expiry of the lease with the consent of the Trustees of the Improvement Trust of Calcutta. 2. On about 23rd of June, 1978 the petitioner received from the Respondent No.2, the Estate Manager of Calcutta Improvement Trust, describing himself as the officer appointed under section 2(i) of the West Bengal Government Premises (Tenancy Regulation) Act, 1976 a notice to quit purporting to be issued under S. 106 of the Transfer of Property Act read With S.3(1) of West Bengal Government premises (Tenancy Regulation) Act, 1976 requiring the petitioner to quit the demise premises and deliver vacant and peaceful possession thereto within one month from the date of the service of the said notice and the reason given was because of the expiry of the lease on the 11th of August, 1975 granted on 30th of September, 1965. According to the petitioners, the said notice is bad and unwarranted in law as the Respondents have no authority to issue the aforesaid notice dated 17th of June, 1978 terminating the tenancy in favour of the petitioner. As such the said notice is void ab initio and is liable to be set aside, cancelled or quashed. 3. The main ground for attack of the said notice by the petitioner is that the Estate Manager, Calcutta Improvement Trust has no jurisdiction to issue such purported notice under the Act referred to above inasmuch as the provisions of West Bengal Premises (Tenancy Regulation) Act, 1976 do not apply to premises in question as it is not a government premises within the meaning of S.2(a) of the said Ac t nor the Calcutta Improvement Trust is a department of the State Government or a undertaking of the Government of West Bengal. Moreover S. 3(1) of the said Act contemplates termination of the tenancy after the expiry of the period mentioned in the notice. The impugned notice mentions the said period to quit by stating that the possession is to be delivered within one month from the date of the service of the said notice. As such it is bad in law, inoperative and has no legal effect. The impugned notice mentions the said period to quit by stating that the possession is to be delivered within one month from the date of the service of the said notice. As such it is bad in law, inoperative and has no legal effect. Thirdly, according to the petitioner, the said West Bengal premises (Tenancy Regulation) Act, 1976 is ultra vires and illegal inasmuch as it does not provide alternative remedy of challenging the validity of the Act, as under the provisions of the said Act the jurisdiction of the civil court has been taken away. Moreover the said Act is ultra vires and illegal, according to the petitioner, inasmuch as it does not provide for any opportunity to the affected persons of making any representation nor does it provide for an opportunity of being heard. 4. Section 2 of the West Bengal Government Premises (Tenancy Regulation) Act, 1976 defines any premises which is owned by the State Government or by the government undertaking but does not include any particular residence of any person authorized to occupy any premises in consideration of the office under the State Government or a government undertaking. Government undertaking is defined under S. 2(b) as a body corporate constituted by or under Central or State Act which is under the administrative control of the State Government or in which the State Government has exclusive proprietary interest. Under sub-s. (3) every tenancy held by tenant in respect of a government premises shall stand terminated upon the expiry of the period referred to in the notice to quit served upon the tenant in the prescribed manner. The tenancy will automatically stand terminated without any notice to quit where the tenancy has violated terms of the lease or made defaults of payment of rent for three consecutive months. 5. In the affidavit-in-opposition it has been stated that because of violent explosion and fire in the transformer house on 1st of January, 1974 tenants of the adjacent flats complained as there had also been on previous occasion such fire and explosion from the transformer house. Thereafter another incident of fir and explosion took place in the year 1974, as, according to the Respondents, the said fire occurred due to gross overloading of the machine. Thereafter another incident of fir and explosion took place in the year 1974, as, according to the Respondents, the said fire occurred due to gross overloading of the machine. Moreover, according to the Respondents, the petitioners did not signally its desire for further renewal of the lease three months before the expiry of the terms of the lease by notice in writing to the Calcutta Improvement Trust as per rule 3(ii) of the lease dated 30th of September, 1965. As a result the lease was not renewed. According to the Respondents, as the petitioner tendered a cheque as rent for a number of premises including premises to dispute the Calcutta improvement Trust had accepted the said cheuqe on account of rent ; as such acceptance of the cheque should not be taken as an acceptance of the petitioner’s proposal to renew the lease. 6. The point for determination before me is whether the Estate Manager, Calcutta Improvement Trust, can serve a notice to quit under S.2(1) of the West Bengal Government Premises (Tenancy Regulation) Act, 1976 requiring the petitioner to quit the demise premises and deliver vacant peaceful possession within one month. The notice to quit has been given under S. 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, read with S.3(1) of the West Bengal Government Premises (Tenancy Regulation) Act, 1976. To consider and decide whether the demise premises is either owned by the State Government or by a government undertaking the necessarily follows for determination whether Calcutta Improvement Trust is government undertaking in the sense whether the Calcutta Improvement Trust is under the administrative control of the State Government or whether the State Government has exclusive proprietary interest in the same. By reading S. 2(a) it would appear that any premises which is owned either by government or by government undertaking would be attracted under the provisions of this Act. The government undertaking al indicated above has been defined as a body corporate constituted under any Central or State Act which is under the administrative control of the State Government. By reading S. 2(a) it would appear that any premises which is owned either by government or by government undertaking would be attracted under the provisions of this Act. The government undertaking al indicated above has been defined as a body corporate constituted under any Central or State Act which is under the administrative control of the State Government. There is no doubt that Calcutta Improvement Trust is a creation of the Calcutta Improvement Act of 1911 which was palled to provide for the improvement and extension of Calcutta the duly of carrying out the provisions of the Act under S.3 is vested in a Board to be called the Trustees for the Improvement of Calcutta and the Board under S. 4 shall consist of trustees, namely, (a) the Chairman, appointed by the State Government; (b) the Commissioner of the Corporation; (c) Three members of the Corporation elected by the Corporation; (d) two member representing four chamber of commerce (e) four other person appointed by the State Government by notification. 7. According to the Respondents, the Calcutta Improvement Trust baa been formed under the Calcutta Improvement Act of 1911 and the State government has administrative control over the same. Inasmuch as not only the Chairman of the Calcutta Improvement Trust and the members would be appointed by the State Government over and above that there would be four persons appointed by the State Government by notification. The duty of carrying out the provisions of the Act shall be under S. 3 of the Calcutta Improvement Trust Act, 1911 and such duty shall be subject to the conditions and limitations as contained in the said Act The Government has power under S. 15 by notification to remove the Trusted. Under S. 25, any contract involving exceeding Rs. 5000/- shall not be made by the Chairman of the Calcutta Improvement Trust without the approval and sanction of the Board and any Contract involving an expenditure of Rs. 5 lakhs shall not be made without the approval and sanction of the State Government. Under S. 25, any contract involving exceeding Rs. 5000/- shall not be made by the Chairman of the Calcutta Improvement Trust without the approval and sanction of the Board and any Contract involving an expenditure of Rs. 5 lakhs shall not be made without the approval and sanction of the State Government. Section 29 provides that the Chairman .hall forward to the State Government a copy of the minutes of the proceeding of each meeting of the Board and at the direction of the State Government the Chairman shall forward to it a copy of all papers which were kept before the Board for consideration at the meeting Under S.33, sanction of the State Government is required for certain statements, rules and orders made by the Board. Under Ss. 47 and 49, any sanction or scheme for improvement by the Trusted must be placed before the Government and the State Government has been given power to sanction or reject improvement scheme and only when the Government sanctions improvement scheme and/or announces such fact by notification the Board shall forthwith persecute to execute the scheme. Under S. 69 the Board may acquire land with the previous unction of the State Government for carrying out any of purposes of this Act. Under S.19 the Board may from time to time borrow money with the approval of the state Government and the Establishment and maintenance of sinking funds will be done without the approval of the State Government. Power to discontinue the sinking fund and investment of the sinking fund shall not be done without the consent and the linking fund be vested in government securities in the joint names of the Secretary to the Government of West Bengal in the financial department and the Accountant General of West Bengal. Every assessment and budget shall be submitted to the State Government for its approval or disallowance. So that the Government will also have a complete control over the budget. Under S.130 of the said Act, accounts of the Board shall be examined and audited by the auditor appointed by the State Government. Under S.137 further powers have been given to the State Government for making rules. Considering the entire scheme of the Act is would appear that although it is not the proprietary concern of the State Government but it is under the administrative control of the State Government. Under S.137 further powers have been given to the State Government for making rules. Considering the entire scheme of the Act is would appear that although it is not the proprietary concern of the State Government but it is under the administrative control of the State Government. Considering the entire scheme and the control of the State Government including the power to remove the trustees, sanction loan, approval of the scheme and to make rules and the accounts being audited by the Government auditors investment of the surplus fund with the intention of the legislature to keep a complete control over the functioning of the Calcutta Improvement Trust by the State of West Bengal. As such the Calcutta Improvement Trust comes under the purview of S.2(b) of the West Bengal Government Premises (Tenancy Regulation) Act, 1976. 8. In the case of Purustottam Das v. Trustees for its Improvement of Calcutta, Sabyasachi Mukharji, J. on 1st of June, 1979 had to consider a notice served under S.3 (iii) of the West Bengal Government premises (Tenancy Regulation) Act, 1976. The petitioner in that case was a tenant in respect of a flat of the Calcutta Improvement Trust and the notice was challenged on various grounds. It was also contended in that case that the provisions of the said Act did not apply to premises is question as it was not a government premises nor is it a government undertaking premises which is under the administrative control of the government. As such it was contended there that this Act has no application and it was further urged that the impugned notice was vague. It was also contended in that case that the Act did not provide for any hearing or opportunity to controvert any unilateral allegation on the part of the authorities. As such it gave arbitrary powers in the hands of the authorities. There the learned Judge directed the stay of the operation of the notice for two months and in the meantime directed the Estate Manager Calcutta Improvement Trust to hold an enquiry to find out whether the breach of agreement alleged has been taken place and the petitioner bal kept the flat under lock and key and on enquiry if the Estate Manager has come to the conclusion that the flat had been kept closed for a long time the impugned notice will be liven effect to. There the validity of the Act was also challenged From the nature of the order passed it appears that the learned Judge permitted the said notice to take into effect after two months and after proper enquiry as to whether the flat was kept under lock and key although not in express terms, the learned Judge came to the Conclusion that the statute was valid and allowed the notice to take effect a after two months. 9. In my view by allowing the notice to take effect, by implication the learned Judge had rejected all the contentions raised by the petitioner that the building owned by the Calcutta Improvement Trust did not fall within the definition as given under S. 2 of the West Bengal Government Premises (Tenancy Regulation) Act, 1979 and all other identical points taken regarding validity of the laid statute. 10. Under S. 12 provisions of this Act will have effect notwithstanding anything contained in other law for the time being in force or in any custom or usage to the contrary. As such the Learned lawyer for the Respondent submitted that the petitioner's grievance that no opportunity was given to the petitioner of being heard or to show cause is to why notice should not be rejected is of no avail in view of the fact that tile Act itself does not provide for any such provision of giving an opportunity of being heard. 11. The learned lawyer of the respondent cited the case reported in AIR 1971 Calcutta 8 whoa a Division Bench of this court held that "In any event in the case of an area completely covered by a special statute and specially in a field which is not covered by the common law I maintain a view that the statute mutt govern and its language end Words are the determining factors. Many principles of actual justice today have been overcomed by the dictates of statute passed because of the needs of modern society and social welfare. To conclude whether the statute either expressly or by necessary implication excluded notice to the aggrieved party in case of requisition of land for public purpose as in the West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948 is to fly in the face of this statue. To conclude whether the statute either expressly or by necessary implication excluded notice to the aggrieved party in case of requisition of land for public purpose as in the West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948 is to fly in the face of this statue. Where these is statutory silence there is scope for applying the principles of natural justice but where on a proper interpretation of the statute itself, expressly or by necessary implication, such notice is excluded then it will not be justifiable for any court to reintroduce it on the ground of principles of natural justice”. In the case reported in AIR 1978 SC 587 (Menoka Gandhi v. Union of India) it has been held that although there is no positive words in the statute requiring that the party shall be heard. Yet justice of the common law will supply the omission of the legislature. The principle of audi alteram partem which mandates that no one shall be condemned unread is part of the natural justice. Natural Justice is a great humanizing principle indented to invest law with fairness and to accrue justice. The Estate Manager of the Calcutta Improvement Trust has been delegated with the power by gazette notification no. 7356/H2/14 dated 20th of November, 1976 and pursuant to the said order the notice has been served by the Estate Manager. 12. I am of the view and bold that the premise in question owned by the Calcutta Improvement Trust is a government premises as Calcutta Improvement Trust is a body constituted under an Act and is also under the administrative control of the State Government. I hold that the notice served under S. 3 of the laid Act is valid. 13. I am of the view that the Estate Manager should give the applicant an opportunity of being beard before enforcing the notice. 14. Save as aforesaid the rule is discharged and all interm orders vacated. There will be stay of operation of the order for a fortnight. Rule discharged.