ORDER The petitioners challenge in the present proceedings a notice dated 4.12.79 issued by the Assistant Estates Manager, Calcutta Improvement Trust purportedly under S. 3(1) of the West Bengal Government Premises (Tenancy Regulation) Act 1976 asking the petitioner No. 1 to quit Flat No. 63 of Block No. A, C I T Scheme No. B I S at 7/1, Rajendra Mall ck Street, Calcutta-7. It is the case of the petitioner that their father Mohonlal Sikaria was allotted the said Flat being No. 63 Block No. A at a rental of Rs. 80 per month according to English calendar month. On the death of their father Mohonlal Sikaria on January 9, 1963 the petitioners as his sons who used to live jointly with him had the tenancy transferred in the name of petitioner No. 1 since he was the Karta of the Joint Hindu family and rent receipts were issued in his name. The petitioner No. 1 used to carry on order supply business in Calcutta from 1963 till 1973 and never went out of Calcutta and continued to live in the said flat. In or about 1974 the joint family consisting of the petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 acquired substantial interest in a joint stock company known as Hyderabad Tin Products Ltd. having its registered office at Hyderabad. Since then the petitioner no. 1 became the director of the said Company and he had to frequently go to Hyderabad in connection with his business and had to stay there for several days in a month. The petitioner No. 1 continued to be the Karta of the joint Hindu family consisting of himself and his family and the family of the petitioner No.2. The petitioner No. 2 also acquired substantial interest in another company known as Synthetic Plywood Industries (P) Ltd having its factory at Vizianagrm. The petitioner No. 2 became the director of the laid company and he had to go to Vizianangram in connection with the said business and had to stay there for several days in a month. It is the case of the petitioners that they jointly and/or severally never owned any flat at no. 107 Southern Avenue, Calculta-29 or anywhere else in Calcutta except the flat in question. The said flat was never under lock and key for a continuous period of six months as alleged or at all. It is the case of the petitioners that they jointly and/or severally never owned any flat at no. 107 Southern Avenue, Calculta-29 or anywhere else in Calcutta except the flat in question. The said flat was never under lock and key for a continuous period of six months as alleged or at all. The said flat was in occupation of the petitioners and they had been living in the said flat except for temporary periods when they said had to remain outside Calcutta in connection with their business. The petitioners paid all their outstanding bills and had also been paying electric bills for consumption of electricity in the said flat every month. The petitioners also received insurance premium notice from the Life Insurance Corporation of India and also personal letters and correspondences, share dividends etc at the said address. On or about April 1976 West Bengal Government Premises (Tenancy Regulation) Act, 1976 came into force. Section 3 of the said Act provides inter alia that the tenancy of any tenant of a Government premises can be terminated on service upon him of a notice of eviction and the tenancy would automatically terminate if the rents were in arrears or any building had been constructed and/or acquired by the tenant. On or about December 10, 1979 the petitioners received notice dated December 4, 1979 pasted on the outer door of the flat purportedly issued by the respondent no. 3 under S. 3(1) of the West Bengal Government Premises (Tenancy Regulation) Act, 1976 issued in the name of the petitioner no. 1. Thereafter on January 4, 1980 the petitioner no. 1 received another notice under S. 3(1) of the West Bengal Government Premises (Tenancy Regulation) Act 1976 under registered post with acknowledgement due. In both the notices, tenancy of the petitioner no. 1 in respect of the said flat was sought to be terminated on the ground of keeping the said flat under lock and key for the preceding six months and because of his owning a flat at no. 107 Southern Avenue, Calcutta-29 being flat no. 8A. The petitioners were thereafter directed to deliver possession of the said premises within a month from the date of service of notice. It was inter alia mentioned in the said notice that on the failure of the petitioner no. 107 Southern Avenue, Calcutta-29 being flat no. 8A. The petitioners were thereafter directed to deliver possession of the said premises within a month from the date of service of notice. It was inter alia mentioned in the said notice that on the failure of the petitioner no. 1 to comply with the said notice, the possession of the said flat would be taken by evicting him under S. 4(2) of the West Bengal Government Premises (Tenancy Regulation) Act, 1976. After receipt of the said notices, the petitioners personally tendered rent for subsequent months but the respondent no. 1 dated January 2, 1980 to the purported notice under S. 3(1) of the West Bengal Government Premises (Tenancy Regulation) Act, 1976 it was withdrawn and/or cancelled. On February 8, 1980 the petitioners moved an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India inter alia challenging the provisions of the said Act as ultra vires the Constitution of India asking the respondents nos. 1 to 3 not to give effect or further effect to the impugned notice dated December 4, 1979. Copy of the previous writ application is annexure "C" to the present writ application. The said application having been moved before the Hon'ble Mr. Justice D. K. Sen, his lordship issued a rule Nisi calling upon the respondents to show cause as to why a writ in the nature of Mandamus should not issue as referred to in prayer (a) of the petition. His lordship was further pleased to issue an interim order restraining the respondent no. 3 from taking further steps under the impugned notice dated 4.12.79. The interim order was thereafter extended from time to time. In the said application, which was registered as Civil Rule No. 1151(w) of 1980, the respondents filed affidavit in opposition and the petitioners also filed their reply thereto. The respondents filed a supplementary affidavit and directions were given to the petitioners to file further affidavit-in-reply. The said application was appearing before the Hon'ble Mr. Justice T. K. Basu in the early part of 1984 and was being adjourned from time to time. Section 3 of the West Bengal Government Premises (Tenancy Regulation) Act 1976 was declared ultra vires the Constitution of India by the Hon'ble Mr. The said application was appearing before the Hon'ble Mr. Justice T. K. Basu in the early part of 1984 and was being adjourned from time to time. Section 3 of the West Bengal Government Premises (Tenancy Regulation) Act 1976 was declared ultra vires the Constitution of India by the Hon'ble Mr. Justice D. K. Sen in C. O. 16389 to 16391(W) of 1981 in the case of A. K. Mukherjee v. State of West Bengal which was reported in AIR 1983 NOC 189. In view of the fact that such a decision was made, the petitioners advised their learned Advocate not to press the rule obtained by the petitioners and the same was dismissed for non-prosecution which was recorded by an order dated May 2, 1984 passed by T. K. Sen, J. After the dismissal of Civil Rule no. 1151(W)/80, the petitioners came to know that the respondents were going to take steps for taking possession of the flat in terms of the provisions of S. 4(2) of the said Act. They came to know that the respondent no. 1 had already sent intimation to the respondent no. 5 to provide police force for taking possession of the flat. The petitioners thereafter moved for the present rule praying inter alia for a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents, their agents, subordinates and servants to forbear from evicting the petitioners or directing the petitioners to give vacant possession of the said flat and also for a writ in the nature of Certiorari directing the respondents to certify the records to this Hon'ble Court leading to issuance of notice dated 4.12.79 so that conscionable justice may be done by setting aside the same. 2. It shall not be out of place to mention in this context that Hon'ble Mr. Justice Chittatosh Mookerjee and the Hon'ble Mr. Justice Shamsuddin Ahmed by a judgment wherein it was held inter alia by their lordships that S. 3 of the said Act did not give unguided discretion to the prescribed authority. By a separate judgment delivered by the Division Bench on 3.5.85 in Civil Rule No. 16393(W)/8 & 16394(W)/84 and in several other rules, their Lordships upheld the validity of the West Bengal Government Premises (Regulation of Occupancy) Act, 1984. 3. By a separate judgment delivered by the Division Bench on 3.5.85 in Civil Rule No. 16393(W)/8 & 16394(W)/84 and in several other rules, their Lordships upheld the validity of the West Bengal Government Premises (Regulation of Occupancy) Act, 1984. 3. In the West Bengal Government Premises (Tenancy Regulation) Amendment Act 1981 there was an amendment to S. 3 of the West Bengal Act XIX of 1976 and it was specifically incorporated in the statute that if a tenant subsequently builds a house of his own, he would thereby be liable to be evicted. In the West Bengal Government Premises (Tenancy Regulation) Second Amendment Act 1980 there was a further amendment to the effect that if a person subsequently build a house or acquired (by purchase, gift, inheritance, lease, exchange or otherwise) a house or an apartment, either in his own name or in the name of any member of his family, within a reasonable distance from such Government premises, he would be disentitled to continue as a tenant. There was yet a further amendment by bringing S. 3A of the said Act, whereby it was stipulated inter alia that the tenancy in respect of Government premises shall be deemed to be void where on the date of allotment of such Government premises, the tenant is or had been the owner of any house or an apartment, either in his own name or in the name of any member of his family, within a reasonable distance from such Government premises. 4. M. N. Roy, J. in the case of Saral Kumar Sengupta v. State of West Bengal reported in 1982(1) Calcutta High Court Notes 273 held inter alia that under the provisions of the said Act, termination of tenancy was automatic in case of violation of terms of lease and the West Bengal Government Premises (Tenancy Regulation) Act 1976 had excluded the application of principles of natural justice within the framework of the statute. Padma Khastgir, J. in the case of Calcutta Electric Supply Corporation v. State of West Bengal reported in 1979(2) Calcutta High Court Notes 448 while holding that a premises belonging to the Trustees for the Improvement of Calcutta was a "Government premises" coming under the purview of the Act, observed inter alia that the Estate Manager, Calcutta Improvement Trust who had been vested with the powers of the prescribed authority, ought to give an opportunity of hearing before enforcing the notice under S. 3(1) of the Act, Khastgir J., in her turn referred to the unreported decision of Sabyasachi Mukhaji J. had disposed of the said rule obtained against a notice under S. 3(2) of the West Bengal Government Premises (Tenancy Regulation) Act 1976 issued on behalf of the Calcutta Improvement Trust. While rejecting the contention that the said Act did not apply to premises owned by the Calcutta Improvement Trust, Sabyasachi Mukharji, J. directed stay of operation of the notice under S. 3(2) of the West Bengal Government Premises (Tenancy Regulation) Act 1976 for two months and in the meantime directed the Estate Manger, Calcutta Improvement Trust to hold an enquiry as to whether the petitioner had committed breach of the terms of the agreement. Further it was held by the Division Bench in the State of West Bengal v. R. K. Lahiri (Chittatosh Mookherjee and Shamduddin Ahmed, JJ.) that S. 3 of the said Act did not give unguided discretion to the Prescribed authority. History of the said legislation, the preamble and the other provisions of the Act negatived the contention about giving unguided discretion to the prescribed authority for exercising the power to terminate the tenancy governed by the said Act. 5. It has been contended that in F.M.A. No. 576/81 (decided by M.N. Roy and A.C. Sengupta, JJ. on 3.7.85) in the case of Trustees for the Improvement of Calcutta Vs. Nitya Nanda Pal the Division Bench was pleased to hold that if, there be violation of the terms of lease, the tenancy was liable to termination and not otherwise. The judgment of the said case has however been placed before us and I had the privilege of going through the same. In that decision also their lordships held that a building owned by the Trustees for the Improvement of Calcutta was a government premises. 6. The judgment of the said case has however been placed before us and I had the privilege of going through the same. In that decision also their lordships held that a building owned by the Trustees for the Improvement of Calcutta was a government premises. 6. Be that as it may, he contention raised by the petitioner is that in the instant case also West Bengal Government Premises (Tenancy Regulation) Act, 1976 does not apply in respect of premises held by the Calcutta Improvement Trust. In view of the judgment already decided on the point. I do not think that there is any scope for further argument otherwise. The premises held by the Calcutta Improvement Trust is also a premises covered by the West Bengal Government Premises (Tenancy Regulation) Act 1976 since it is not only a premises belonging to a local authority but also “a government premises” coming under the purview of the West Bengal Government Premises (Tenancy Regulation) Act, 1976. 7. Under S.2 of the West Bengal Government Premises (Tenancy) Regulation) Act 1976. It is provided inter alia “that Government premises” means any premises which is owned by the State Government or by a Government undertaking but does not include official residence of any persons authorised to occupy premises in consideration of the office which be holds under the State Government or an undertaking for the time being. Government under taking has been defined to mean a body corporate constituted by or under a Central or State Act which is under the administrative control of the State Government or in which the State Government has exclusive proprietary interest. Since Calcutta Improvement Trust i.e. Trustees of the Improvement of Calcutta are governed by Calcutta Improvement Act 1911. I have no manner of doubt to hold that all premises owned by the Trustees for the Improvement of Calcutta are covered by the definition of a “Government premises.” The trust also is otherwise a Government undertaking being a body corporate constituted by the Calcutta Improvement Act 1911. The view taken by Khastgir, J. in this case of Calcutta Electric Supply Corporation Vs. State of West Bengal, reported in 1979 (2) Calcutta High Court Notes p.448 also supports the view that I take in the present context. 8. That apart there is another technical objection that has been taken by Mr. The view taken by Khastgir, J. in this case of Calcutta Electric Supply Corporation Vs. State of West Bengal, reported in 1979 (2) Calcutta High Court Notes p.448 also supports the view that I take in the present context. 8. That apart there is another technical objection that has been taken by Mr. Dasgupta which I have no other alternative but to uphold in the facts and circumstances of the present case. While allowing Civil Rule No.1151 (W)/80 to be dismissed without obtaining a specific leave of the Court to file a fresh application on merits, the petitioners are now estopped from challenging in a subsequent proceedings, the self same notice which was under challenge in Civil Rule No. 1151(W)/80. The present writ application is therefore not maintainable. 9. It has been contended that one Ratan Kumar Agarwala had been actually occupying the flat. This was revealed on an enquiry undertaken by the Assistant Estate Manager to the Calcutta Improvement Trust. In a supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of Trust in the previous rule, this fact was brought to the notice of the Court and it was not denied by a counter affidavit. It is therefore not necessary to direct a further enquiry in the light of the unreported judgment of Purushottam Das Vs. Trustees for the Improvement of Calcutta, decided by Sabyasachi Mukharji, J. on 1.6.79 in matter no. 159 of 1978. This rule is thus discharged but there will not be any order as to costs. On the prayer of Mr. Mullick, let there be a stay of operation of this judgment for a fortnight. All interim orders would state vacated after a fortnight. Rule discharged.