JUDGMENT Although this matter was listed under the heading "Specially Fixed For Orders" but keeping in view the fact that the learned Counsel for the parties were heard at length, this application is being disposed of at this stage. 2. This writ application is directed against the order dated 16th August. 1995 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar, Suri, Birbhum, whereby and whereunder the petitioners have been directed to give vacant possession of the premises (east side) in question purported to be in terms of his power conferred upon the said authority in sub-section (2) of Section 331 of the Bengal Municipal Act, 1932. 3. According to the petitioners they were the tenants in the said premises of which the respondent No.8 is the landlord. According to the respondent No.8 the petitioners are trespassers. The respondent No.8 conten1ds that the licence was granted to one Ananda Chowdhury which was temporary in nature and the said licence was surrendered in the year 1992. It is stated that in between the year 1992 and 1995 the petitioners Nos.1 to 12 started residing in the Mess known as to “Rajlaxmi Technical Mess" and paying rent regularly. 4. In this view of the matter, there appears to be a dispute as to whether the petitioners are trespassers or lawful tenants. 5. Be that as it may, the impugned order admittedly has been passed without giving an opportunity of hearing to the writ petitioners. 6. Mr, Dutta, learned Counsel appealing on behalf of the respondent submits that in terms of sub-section (2) of Section 331 of the Bengal Municipal Act. 1932 a opportunity of bearing is required to be given only to the owner of the premises Assuming that the said contention is correct, the very fact that the impugned order was passed as against the petitioners goes to show that an application for their eviction must have been filed by the private respondent while initialing a proceeding in terms of Section 331 of the said Act. The concerned Executive Magistrate is concerned with the question as to whether the building in question is in such dilapidated condition so as to merit demolition. Even if the petitioners are trespassers or licensees they could be evicted only upon filing a suit. The concerned Executive Magistrate is concerned with the question as to whether the building in question is in such dilapidated condition so as to merit demolition. Even if the petitioners are trespassers or licensees they could be evicted only upon filing a suit. Furthermore had the petitioners been given an opportunity of bearing, they could have shown that the application for demolition of the building was merely a camouflage so as to enable the private respondent to evict the petitioners upon bypassing the provision of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act. 7. In this view of the matter, in my opinion, that it was necessary to give an opportunity of bearing to the petitioner when the fact that they had been residing therein had been disclosed. It is true that in terms of the provision of the said Act, no notice of bearing is necessary to be served upon the petitioners but in my opinion as by reason of the impugned order the suffered civil consequences, they should have been given an opportunity of bearing when it has been brought to the notice of the S. D. O. that the petitioners are in possession thereof. Had such a notice been given, the petitioners could have shown that they were tenants and not trespassers. 8. The impugned order was passed in the month of August 1995. This writ application was filed on 31st August, 1995. The private respondent has filed an application for vacating stay today although this writ application is pending before this Court for a long time. 9. Mr Dutta, learned Counsel for the respondent has relied upon a Division Bench decision in the case of (1) Ranjit Kumar Halder v. C. M. D. A. reported in 1995(2) Cal LT 406. In that case the Division Bench of this Court was considering the matter of granting injunction and/or issuance of a writ of or in the nature of Mandamus. In the said case, the Division Bench came to a finding that the petitioner was a rank trespasser and thus, the Court will not come to the aid in public law remedy to protect his unlawful and forcible possession against true and lawful owners particularly against public authority who had constructed such flats and who are bound to hand over possession to the allottees from whom they have taken money. In the instant case the petitioners are claiming title over the property in question as tenants and according to them their rights are protected under the provision of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act. This Court while considering the respective contentions of the parties, cannot decide as to whether the contention of the petitioners and the private respondent in this regard is correct or not. 10. This Court in the instant cafe is concerned with the legality or validity of the impugned order. It is also not a case where a writ of or in the nature of Mandamus is to be issued but a Writ of Certiorari Is to be issued. For the reason aforementioned, the said decision has no application in the facts and circumstances of this case. 11. In this view of the matter, this writ application is allowed. The impugned order as contained in Annexure "F" to the writ application is set aside and the said authority is directed to pass a fresh order after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. 12. Before parting with this case, I may mention that I have not entered into the merits of the case. 13. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar, Suri, Birbhum should dispose of the matter as an early date. The learned Counsels for the parties are permitted to take down the gist of this order.