M. N. ROY, J. ( 1 ) THIS memorandum of appeal from original order, is directed against the judgment and order dt. 6th Aug. 1979, passed in Civil Rule No. 1791 (W) of 1977, by Bimal Chandra Basak, J. By that order, the learned Judge has made the Rule absolute and directed the issue of or Writ of Mandamus restraining the respondents before him, from proceeding against the writ petitioner under the provisions of the West Bengal Government Premises (Tenancy Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the said 1976 Act ). While making such order, the learned Trial Judge, however, made it clear that if the Respondents before him have any other right under any other law or provisions of the statute, the order as made, will not prevent them from proceeding with the same in accordance with law. ( 2 ) THE writ petitioner, who is Respondent 1 before us, claimed in his petition, that after the partition of Bengal, he along with the other members of his family, came to West Bengal in search of permanent hearth and home and in fact, on 30th March 1948, they came to Calcutta and took shelter in a abandoned Muslim house at Ultadanga, Calcutta, being premises No. 427a, Harish Neogi Road, P. S. Maniktala, Calcutta-67 (hereinafter referred to as the said premises), on 29th March 1950 and had been residing in two rooms in the said premises. It has further been stated by him that the owner of the said premises at all material times was one Sk. Kalimuddin Choudhury of 142/1, Jhowtola Road, Calcutta and he filed a case being Case No. 977 of 1951 before the competent authority under West Bengal Act XVI, 1951 for eviction of the unauthorised occupants including the petitioner. ( 3 ) IT has also been stated by the writ petitioner that on the basis of the Competent Authority's directions, there was an enquiry and he was proved to be a displaced person, having no property in India and it has also been observed on consideration of his affidavit that the petitioner had no intention to go back to East Pakistan. It has been said, that after such enquiry and since he was proved to be a displaced person, he was given protection under the said Act XVI of 1951 and necessary recordings were made for favour of furnishing alternative accommodation to him. It has been said, that after such enquiry and since he was proved to be a displaced person, he was given protection under the said Act XVI of 1951 and necessary recordings were made for favour of furnishing alternative accommodation to him. It was also the case of the petitioner that pending the provisions for alternative accommodation as mentioned above, the petitioner in the case as mentioned above, was assessed and directed to pay Rs. 30/- per month to the said owner Sk. Kalimuddin Chaudhury and in fact, the petitioner occupied the two concerned rooms in the said premises on regular payment of the compensation as mentioned above. The petitioner has stated that such position continued up to 1965, when the said premises was acquired by the Trustees for the improvement of Calcutta (hereinafter referred to as the said Trust ). Even though the petitioner was not provided with the alternative accommodation, as was ordered by the competent authority in the case as mentioned above and as indicated earlier, which was disposed of on 27th Feb. 1954, on such acquisition of the said premises, the petitioner has stated, that he was advised to file an application before the Chairman of the said Trust for allotment of one flat at L. I. G. H. Scheme-I under the said Trust, as he had no shelter in Calcutta and was protected from eviction in the manner as indicated hereinbefore. The petitioner has stated that at the time of making such application, his income was Rs. 245/- only per month and he was serving as Junior Development Officer in Life Insurance Corporation of India. It was his case that on consideration of his claim, he was allotted a flat by the said Trust and he has further averred that for convenience of enjoyment, the occupants exchanged their flats with notice to the said Trust and since then, the petitioner has been residing in a one roomed flat being No. 39 of Block No. IX, C. I. T. Scheme L. I. G. G.-I at the said premises which has been renumbered as Premises No. 107/108/4, Ultadanga Main Road, Calcutta-57. It was the further case of the petitioner that the said Trust had acquired such premises in which, he was residing at the relevant time with the protection against eviction till alternative accommodation was received and the said Trust acquired the said premises with such covenant running with the said premises and the petitioner too was allotted one flat in the manner as indicated above and hence, his induction in the said premises was on the basis of the covenant and condition running with the said premises which as mentioned hereinbefore, was acquired by the said Trust and the same was not as per general provisions prevailing for induction of tenants in the flats belonging to the said Trust. It was the further case of the said petitioner that he has not as yet been provided with alternative accommodation. ( 4 ) THE petitioner has further stated that during the stay at the flat in question, he has all along been serving as the Development Officer under the Life Insurance Corporation of India and besides such allowances as mentioned above, presently or at the time of obtaining the Rule on 6th June, 1977, he was drawing a monthly salary of Rs. 500/- with dearness allowance Rs. 200/- only, and the other admissible allowances for doing field works. According to him, those allowances will not and should not be considered as his salary. He has alleged that in the block of flats, there are occupants, who are not only affluent, but are having income, more than Rs. 2,000/- per month. ( 5 ) IT has been indicated that on 7th Jan. 1977, the Assistant Estate Manager of the said Trust, Mr. C. K. Biswas, came to the petitioner's flat, when he was absent and thereafter, on coming to learn about such visit of the said Shri Biswas, he met him at the office of the said Trust and came to learn that on the basis of reports of the Inspector Shri Haren Banerjee, the officer concerned went to his flat for enquiry about his monthly income. It has been stated that after receipt of such information, the petitioner became suspicious about some underhand policy for evicting him from the flat in question and as such, on 15th Jan. It has been stated that after receipt of such information, the petitioner became suspicious about some underhand policy for evicting him from the flat in question and as such, on 15th Jan. 1977, he filed a deputation containing the recommendations of Shri Biren Mohanti, one of the members of the Board of Trustees of the said Trust to the effect, that the petitioner was a displaced person and in consideration of being a displaced person, the said Shri Mahanti felt, that he should be allowed to reside in the flat undisturbed. The said Shri Mahanti requested the Chairman to look into the case personally and consider sympathetically in favour of the petitioner. It was the further case of the petitioner that he paid Rs. 42/- per month as his rent for the flat in question and which was due for the month of January 1977, on 10th Jan. 1977, but in spite of accepting such rent by granting rent receipt and in spite of receiving the written deputation as mentioned above, the authorities of the said Trust, issued a ejectment notice being No. EM/2667 dated 18th Jan. 1977, under the signature of the Assistant Estate Manager, under S. 3 (2) of the said 1976 Act, directing him to quit and vacate the premises as per directions as contained therein. The said notice is in Annexure "c" to the petition and the terms of the same are quoted hereunder :-"take notice that since you have violated the terms of the Tenancy Agreement in respect of your tenancy of the aforesaid flat, the said tenancy hereby stands automatically terminated in terms of S. 3 (2) of the West Bengal Govt. Premises (Tenancy Regulation) Act, 1976. You are, therefore, required to quit the said premises and deliver vacant peaceful possession of the said flat to the local R. C. immediately. "it was the further case of the petitioner that after that, he made personal representations to different authorities of the said Trust, but those authorities did not consider his case and the petitioner had no other alternative, but to accept the notice and as a result of that, the relationship of landlord and tenant was determined by the same. It has also been stated by him that in spite of service of the notice dt. It has also been stated by him that in spite of service of the notice dt. 5th May 1977, issued by the said Trust, under the signature of Estate Manager and Prescribed Authorities under S. 8/1 of the said 1976 Act, which was a second ejectment notice and whereby the petitioner was directed to quit and vacate the premises as per direction embodied in that notice, on the ground that his income was higher than the ceiling prescribed for L. I. G. Flat. The said notice has been disclosed in Annexure "d" to the petition and the terms thereof are quoted hereunder :-whereas I, Sri A. P. Basu, Estates Manager (name and designation) am satisfied, that your tenancy in respect of the Govt. premises described in the schedule hereunder has terminated automatically under S. 3 (2) of the West Bengal Govt. Premises (Tenancy Regulation) Act, 1976 for the reasons stated below :-NOW, therefore, in terms of R. 3 (3) of the West Bengal Govt. Premises (Tenancy Regulation) Rules, 1976, I hereby give you, Sri Nitya Nanda Paul (name of tenant) notice to quit the Govt. premises described in the Schedule hereunder and deliver vacant and peaceful possession thereof within one month from the date of service hereof. If you fail to comply with this notice possession of the premises described in the schedule shall be taken by evicting you under S. 4 (2) of the West Bengal Govt. Premises (Tenancy Regulation) Act, 1976. Reasons income being higher than the ceiling prescribed for L. I. G. H. Flats. ( 6 ) ON receipt of the said notice under the said 1976 Act, the writ petitioner on 16th May 1979, made a written deputation to the Estate Manager of the said Trust and by that, he not only demanded justice, but also challenged the validity of the concerned notice. It was also and further submitted by him that the said Trust being a statutory body had their Acts and Rules, as such they were not only entitled to have any relief under the said 1976 Act, but any acting on the basis of the said 1976 Act, was improper and ultra vires and so, such Act would not be enforced or given effect to. In his petition, the writ petitioner has further stated about the series of representations he had made for the redress of his grievances and also about the fact that he had informed the Chairman of the said Trust, that his salary actually was not in excess of the limit of the concerned scheme and for that reason, he was not liable to be evicted. Further, the writ petitioner asked for his accommodation elsewhere and protection against eviction in any event, till he was provided with alternative accommodation in terms of the order as passed in C. A. Case No. 1977 of 1951. ( 7 ) AS indicated earlier, the Rule in which the order as impeached, was obtained on 6th June 1977, was with liberty to the petitioner to apply for interim order on the same application, upon notice to the Respondents. It was further directed that if the requisites necessary for effecting service were not put in or steps were not taken within a week, the prayer for interim order shall stand rejected. ( 8 ) THE Respondents had filed an affidavit-in-opposition dt. 13th Mar. 1978, through Shri Angshu Prakash Basu, the Estate Manager of the said Trust and it has been stated that Flat No. 39 of the said premises belonged to the said Trust and the same formed a part of their housing scheme, particulars whereof have been mentioned hereinbefore. The deponent has stated that the object of such scheme was to provide persons working for gain in or around Calcutta and having an income not exceeding Rs. 250/- per month but had no suitable place to live in, on account of their inability to pay for the same, at a less than economy or market rate. Such limit of low income of Rs. 250/- per month was stated to have been revised from time to time and ultimately, the same has been stated to have been fixed at Rs. 750/ -. According to deponent, no one was and/or is entitled to get or continue in any flat belonging to the said scheme, if his monthly income had or has become more than the limit as mentioned hereinbefore at the relevant time. 750/ -. According to deponent, no one was and/or is entitled to get or continue in any flat belonging to the said scheme, if his monthly income had or has become more than the limit as mentioned hereinbefore at the relevant time. In any event, it has been stated that the allottees of the flats of the concerned scheme were and are bound to quit and vacate their respective flats on crossing the concerned limits of their respective income and on such happenings, there would never be any statutory protection against eviction, as is enjoyed by the tenants governed by the provisions of West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 or any other law, which Act again has been stated to be inapplicable in the block of flats as involved in the proceedings or which belonged to the said Trust. It was the further case of the answering Respondents that the provisions of the said 1976 Act and the Rules framed thereunder viz. the West Bengal Government Premises (Tenancy Regulation) Rules, 1976, would be applicable to the occupants of the buildings or flats belonging to the said Trust. ( 9 ) IT has been stated by the deponent that in exercise of the powers conferred by or under the said 1976 Act or the Rules framed thereunder and by or under an order dt. 28th Feb. 1976, made by or under the authority of the Government of West Bengal and formed by the Trustees of the said Trust, by their resolution No. 24 dt. 27th Nov. 1976, the Estate Manager of the said Trust was and has been appointed "prescribed authority", for the purpose of the said 1976 Act and by virtue of such power, the deponent, as the Estate Manager at all material times was and still is competent to terminate the tenancy, if any, of the occupants of the flats appertaining to the concerned scheme or those belonging to said Trust and issue notice to quit upon the occupants and also recover possession of flats occupied by them in accordance with the procedure as prescribed by the said 1976 Act or the Rules framed thereunder. It was the further case that the Trustees or that the Chairman of the said Trust was not under any statutory obligation to provide for any flat belonging to them to the petitioner or his wife Smt. Niharkana Paul or his brother Shri Ranjit Kumar Paul, by way of alternative accommodation in consequence of the acquisition of the premises in question and as claimed by them. It was also his case that the possession of the said premises, on acquisition, was taken from the erstwhile owner Shri Kalimuddin Chaudhury, for implementing the Streets scheme No. VIII-M, which again was duly sanctioned by the Government of West Bengal under S. 47 of the Calcutta Improvement Act 1911 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act ). The deponent has further stated that the notification by which the Street Scheme was framed, was conclusive evidence of the framing and sanctioning of the concerned scheme under S. 49 of the said Act and the writ petitioner was neither entitled to nor allotted any flat appertaining to the concerned L. I. G. H. Scheme No. I or elsewhere belonging to the said Trust, on the allegation that he was a displaced person or a refugee from East Pakistan now Bangladesh or he was a person displaced from any premises or holding acquired by the said Trust or for their purpose. ( 10 ) THE deponent has further stated that between January 1965 and April 1965 one Shri Ranjit Kumar Paul, claiming himself to be an Assistant Teacher in a Higher Secondary Multi Purpose School of Belgharia and stating his residential address at 42a, Harish Neogi Road, Calcutta and having a monthly income of Rs. 210/-, made an application dt. 14th Jan. 1965, which was followed by another application dated 9th April 1965, for having a proposed tenancy, to the Chairman of the said Trust. He, in fact, prayed for allotment of a residential two roomed flat in the said L. I. G. H. Scheme, for the purpose of residing there, with his aunt, niece and nephew and stated, that he was unable to pay high market rent for such type of flat. The said application was allowed and the said Shri Ranjit Kumar Paul was allotted Flat No. 39 in Block-IX of the concerned Scheme at a rent of Rs. 42. 50p and service charges of Rs. 4. The said application was allowed and the said Shri Ranjit Kumar Paul was allotted Flat No. 39 in Block-IX of the concerned Scheme at a rent of Rs. 42. 50p and service charges of Rs. 4. 50p per month, apart from a deposit of an amount Rs. 47/-, by way of security, with effect from 1st May, 1965. Such allotment, the said deponent has stated, was made in terms of a tenancy agreement as executed, which stipulated that the concerned tenancy was liable to be terminated by 15 days notice on either side and the Trustees for the said Trust would re-enter and take possession of the flat in question in the event of the said Shri Ranjit Kumar Paul's monthly income became more than Rs. 250/- or his aggregate annual income goes over Rs. 3000/- It has further been stated that on or about 25th Oct. 1967, the said Shri Ranjit Kumar Paul surrendered his Flat No. 39 in Block IX mentioned above and at his request, he was allotted Flat No. 27 in Block-X of the concerned Scheme, on a fresh application dt. 5th June 1967. The deponent has further stated that in the meantime, the writ petitioner, who subsequently transpired to be the brother of the said Shri Ranjit Kumar Paul, made an application dt. 1st April 1965, which was followed by another application dt. 11th Sept. 1965, applied for allotment of a two roomed Flat appertaining to the said L. I. G. H. Scheme, for the purpose of his residence with his wife and children, upon the necessary declaration that his monthly income was Rs. 245/- and that he was helpless, whereupon his application for tenancy was accepted on 8th Sept. 1965 and he was allotted Flat No. 27 in Block-X, on a rent of Rs. 42. 50p and service charges 4. 50 p. per month, apart from the said security deposit of Rs. 47/- with effect from 1st Oct. 1965, on consideration of his low income and dearth of accommodation, subject to the conditions as indicated hereinbefore. It has been stated that thereafter, the writ petitioner surrendered the said Flat No. 27 on 3lst Oct. 1965, with a view to securing in his favour, allotment of Flat No. 39, which was surrendered by his brother Shri Ranjit Kumar Paul and on or about 25th Oct. It has been stated that thereafter, the writ petitioner surrendered the said Flat No. 27 on 3lst Oct. 1965, with a view to securing in his favour, allotment of Flat No. 39, which was surrendered by his brother Shri Ranjit Kumar Paul and on or about 25th Oct. 1967, he again made an application to the Chairman of the said Trust, for taking on rent, the said Flat No. 39, on usual terms. It would appear that such prayer was allowed on the same terms and condition as indicated hereinbefore and the writ petitioner deposited the necessary rent and service charges for the month of November 1967 and received possession of Flat No. 39. ( 11 ) THE deponent has averred that the monthly income of the writ petitioner increased gradually and it appeared from a certificate dt. 31st Oct. 1975, issued by the Branch Manager, City Branch No. 9 of the Life Insurance Corporation of India, which was furnished by him, that he being a field staff of the said Corporation, drew a basic salary of Rs. 475/- per month and his total income with various other allowances, including city allowances, dearness allowances, house rent and entertainment allowances amounted to Rs. 1380. 20p per month. The deponent has further stated that it also appeared from a certificate dt. 7th Jan. 1977, issued by the Branch Manager of the City Branch No. 2 of the Life Insurance Corporation of India and as furnished by the writ petitioner, that his basic salary rose to Rs. 500/- per month and his total income, inclusive of the other allowances, amounted to Rs. 1405/- per month. It was the case of the deponent that the writ petitioner was allotted the concerned Flat No. 39, on account of his low income at the relevant time and since his income increased subsequently and rose much beyond the concerned revised limit of Rs. 750/- per month, he ceased to be a person, who could come within the low income group and that being the position, there was no question of allowing him to continue in possession of the flat in question. It has further been indicated that the family of the writ petitioner consisted and consists of himself and his wife Smt. Niharkana Paul and their offspring, some of whom have now become majors. It has further been indicated that the family of the writ petitioner consisted and consists of himself and his wife Smt. Niharkana Paul and their offspring, some of whom have now become majors. ( 12 ) THE deponent has further stated that in or about July 1974, the writ petitioner and his wife Smt. Niharkana Paul, acting in collusion and in conspiracy with each other and on misrepresentation of facts or on untrue statements and suppression of material facts, made an application dt. 8th July 1974, in the name of the said Smt. Niharkana Paul, for allotment of Flat No. 40 appertaining to the concerned L. I. G. H. Scheme, with a view to regularising her unauthorised occupation of the said Flat No. 40, fraudulently, and secured allotment of the said Flat No. 40 in her name. Before dealing with the other statements as contained in the affidavit, we must keep it on record that the way and the manner in which the allotment of Flat No. 40 has been obtained, even though the same was fraudulent or collusive, the authorities of the said Trust, who were incharge of the concerned L. I. G. H. Scheme, must not get any credit, as admittedly they have failed and neglected to have proper verifications done and perhaps by some other means, the allotment in favour of the lady, was obtained, even though her husband was having another allotment of Flat No. 39. ( 13 ) THE deponent has further stated that both the writ petitioner and his wife Niharkana Paul at all material times occupied and still are occupying Flats Nos. 39 and 40 respectively and it has also been alleged that they have made unauthorised pucca construction and fixed a wooden door for the purpose of converting the said two flats into a composite one, without any permission from any of the authorities, who are Respondent herein and such act on their behalf, was illegal. It has been stated that on an enquiry, the Trustees and the Chairman of the said Trust got the facts as aforesaid, revealed through their Estate Inspector. At this stage, we must keep on record that during the course of hearing, we could gather the statements as recorded hereinbefore to be true and as such, we directed Mr. It has been stated that on an enquiry, the Trustees and the Chairman of the said Trust got the facts as aforesaid, revealed through their Estate Inspector. At this stage, we must keep on record that during the course of hearing, we could gather the statements as recorded hereinbefore to be true and as such, we directed Mr. R. N. Mitra who was appearing for the writ petitioner/ respondent, to have removed the construction, if any, and whereby the two flats were sought to be made one, for the necessary enjoyment. In fact, on a subsequent date of hearing, Mr. Mitra informed us that the wooden door which was fixed permanently for the purpose of having the enjoyment of the said flats as one, has been removed and to show and establish that, two photographs, which were taken on 11th May 1985, were produced by Mr. Mitra. It would appear from photograph No. 1 as marked by us and that the writ petitioner is shown to be sitting before the door, which was so fixed and the purposes as mentioned above and photograph No. 2 as marked by us, would establish that the said door has been removed. The said photograph No. 2 would also establish that flats Nos. 39 and 40 were and are the two flats and by putting the permanent door as in photograph No. 1, they were sought to be enjoyed as one. We direct the said photographs to form a part of this record and the order. Such permanent door, even though the same was wooden, cannot be said to have been fixed in one day and we are certain that not only some time as required for fixing the same, but there were stacking of materials for the purposes of fixing the door, which again, perhaps for more than one day. We are sure that for the constructions in the L. I. G. H. Scheme, there is a Caretaker to look after the properties of the said Trust and we fail to understand, what the Caretaker was doing, unless of course this permanent door was fitted with his knowledge and connivance. It is high time that the authorities of the said Trust should take steps and see that such clandestine acts are not permitted to be done by the Residents of the different flats. It is high time that the authorities of the said Trust should take steps and see that such clandestine acts are not permitted to be done by the Residents of the different flats. We make such observation, as we are informed on the face of the statements as made in the affidavits, that there are other tenants who have raised similar constructions in the concerned L. I. G. H. Scheme. Such act of the writ petitioner and his wife, to transform the two flats in question, in one, for the matter of enjoyment, was certainly illegal, unauthorised and improper. It appears that after the mischief was done, the authorities of the said Trust have risen from their slumber and now in their affidavit and that too through the deponent has stated, that the writ petitioner and his wife were not entitled to have such constructions raised or to use the said two flats as one. ( 14 ) IT has also been stated that in the meantime, the writ petitioner has also violated other terms and conditions of his tenancy in respect of Flat No. 39 and parted his possession of the same with a third person viz. Shri Nitya paul, who was or is an Officer of the Life Insurance Corporation of India and in such circumstances as indicated above, the notice dt. 18th Jan. 1977, was issued, requiring him to quit and vacate the said Flat No. 39 and deliver peaceful and vacant possession of the same to the said Trust. It has been stated that thereafter, the writ petitioner made some representations against the concerned notice to quit dt. 18th Jan. 1977 and challenged the legality and validity of the same. The deponent has stated that since the said notice was merely a request, the same was not acted upon, but thereafter, a resolution of the Housing Committee meeting to the following effect : Pursuant to resolution No. 3 of the Housing Committee meeting held on the 14th Feb. 1977, the Committee considered the letter dt. 25th Jan. 1977 from Sri Nityananda Paul, R and T of Flat No. IX-39 in CIT Scheme No. L. I. G. H. with the Secretary's endorsement thereon and the notes dt. 9th Feb. 1977, 9th Mar. and 25th Mar. 1977, the Committee considered the letter dt. 25th Jan. 1977 from Sri Nityananda Paul, R and T of Flat No. IX-39 in CIT Scheme No. L. I. G. H. with the Secretary's endorsement thereon and the notes dt. 9th Feb. 1977, 9th Mar. and 25th Mar. 1977 of Sri D. Chowdhury, Valuation Officer (North) endorsed by the Chief Valuer regarding allotment of the said flat to him as displaced person of premises No. 42a, Harish Neogi Road, acquired by the Trust in connection with CIT Scheme No. VIII-M in the context of service of Notice to quite due to his income being higher than the prescribed ceiling of Rs. 750/- per month. The Committee opined that Sri Nityananda Paul was not allotted the flat as alternative accommodation of L. A. A. 's award but was given the flat on other considerations. Since Sri Paul's income was more than the prescribed ceiling of Rs. 750/- per month there was no point in allowing him to continue with the tenancy of Flat No. IX-39 in CIT Scheme No. L. I. G. H. It was, therefore, decided that Sri Paul would be evicted from the flat after service of due notices with the usual manner, was passed on 25th April 1977, which again was confirmed by the Board of the said Trust on 30th April 1977 and on the basis thereof, the impugned notice dt. 5th May 1977, the particulars whereof have been quoted hereinbefore, was issued under the said 1976 Act and requiring thereby the writ petitioner, to vacate the said Flat No. 39 on the basis that his income was higher than the ceiling prescribed for L. I. G. H. flats. It has also been stated that in spite of such notice and due receipt thereof, the writ petitioner has failed, refused and neglected to quit and vacate the flat in question and that being the position, 6th June 1977, was the date fixed by the respondent 4, Estate Manager of the said Trust, to recover vacant possession of the said Flat No. 39, if necessary, with Police help. It has also been pointed out that on that date the Rule on the disposal whereof, the present appeal has been preferred, was obtained and that according to the deponent, was on suppression of material facts or misrepresentation of them and on untrue allegations. It has also been pointed out that on that date the Rule on the disposal whereof, the present appeal has been preferred, was obtained and that according to the deponent, was on suppression of material facts or misrepresentation of them and on untrue allegations. Save as aforesaid, other material allegations have also been denied by the said deponent. ( 15 ) IN his reply dt. 11 th July 1979 to the affidavit-in-opposition, apart from denying the material allegations, the writ petitioner has stated that steps sought to be taken against him, were contrary to law and beyond the jurisdiction, authority and competence of the authorities of the said Trust and he claimed further, that the writ petition was maintainable in view of the determinations in the case of Sukumar Banerjee v. Chairman, Calcutta Improvement Trust, 82 Cal WN 392. The writ petitioner has further stated that the temporary wooden gate which has been fixed adjacent to his flat, was really fixed with the permission of the then Estate Manager and the Caretaker, as at that time, there were pilferage and theft cases in the concerned Block of Flats, apart from other serious local disturbances. ( 16 ) MR. Ghosh, appearing in support of the appeal pointed out that the determinations as made by the learned Trial Judge, was contrary to another determination of Justice Mrs. Padma Khastgir, in the case of Calcutta Electric Supply Corporation Ltd. v. State of West Bengal, 1979 2 Calhn 448. The petitioner, the Electric Supply Corporation in that case, was a tenant in respect of two rooms under the Improvement Trust Calcutta, received a notice to quit from the Estate Manager of the Trust under S. 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, read with S. 3 (1) of the Government Premises Tenancy Act, requiring the petitioner to quit the premises and deliver possession thereof within one month from the receipt of the said notice. The petitioner challenged the validity of the said notice inter alia on the grounds that the provisions of the Government Premises Tenancy Act are not applicable to the tenancy in question as the premises is not Government premises within the meaning of S. 2 (a) of the said Act, nor the Trust, the lessor, an undertaking or department of the Government, that the notice requiring possession to be delivered within one month from the receipt of the same was bad and that the Act itself is bad as it does not provide for any opportunity of being heard given to the affected person and considering the diverse provisions of the said Act which have created the said Trust and it has been held that it would appear from S. 2 (a), that any premises which is owned either by the Government or by Government undertaking as defined in the Act would be attracted under the provisions of the Act, apart from holding that considering the entire scheme of the Act, it would appear that although the Trust is not a proprietary concern of the State Government, it is under administrative control of the State Government. Some of the provisions of the Act indicate that it was the intention of the legislature to keep a complete control over the functions of the Trust by the State of West Bengal. As such, the Calcutta Improvement Trust comes under the purview of S. 2 (b) of the Government Premises Tenancy Act. It has further been held in that case that the premises involved, as owned by the Trust is a Government premises as the Trust is a body constituted under the Act and is also under the administrative control of the State Government. The notice served under S. 3 of the Act is valid. It would appear that in the determination as mentioned above, another unreported judgment delivered on 1st June 1979 by Sabyasachi Mukharji, J. in Purushottam Das v. Trustees of the Improvement of Calcutta, has been referred to and relied upon, in which case, the learned Judge had to consider a notice served under S. 3 (iii) of the said 1976 Act. In that case, the petitioner was a tenant in respect of a flat of the Calcutta Improvement Trust and the notice was challenged on various grounds. In that case, the petitioner 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 in 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 had 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